Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Tomster]

I’m not waiting for his response. None will be forthcoming. Basically, he has two choices:

1. He can admit that scripture was defined by the authority of the Catholic Church. Once he does this, he will be forced to swim the Tiber. This is a life changing decision that will take time, prayer and humility. This thought process will likely not occur on these pages, but will be done in private,
2. He can continue to Protest against the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestants are effectively forced to believe in Sola Scriputre, since they deny the other two sources of divine inspiration and knowledge: Tradition and the teaching of the Magesterium.

The real question to ask any Protestant is what are they Protesting against. Ususally its a protest against a strawman - what they think the Church is rather than what it REALLY is. As Blessed Cardinal Newman said, To know the Fathers is to become Catholic.

I hear you loud and clear sir.

My point, though, as I stated a couple of post back, is that Protestants DO accept extra-biblical teachings. Certainly, they do not accept the Catholic Church’s claim of authority. But, they do accept the oral and written traditions (read: authority) of their own Fathers which I maintain negates their man-made tradition of sola scriptura.

I am waiting for Parker and Miguel to address this contradiction.

Like you, though, I don’t think they will. The simple reason is they can’t.

 

[Tomster]

Parker, here again is my post from May 18:

Still waiting for your response. This is my third request.

Kay Cee,

Good luck on this one

Miguel demolished his own position on this one all by himself when, unable to give chapter and verse, stated that instead of appealling to the Bible we should ask someone about their own experience on this topic, thereby appealing to an extra-biblical source.

Let’s see if Parker can do a little better.

 

[EricFilmer]

Well said Eric!

Your last paragraph hit it right on the spot.

Parker has done precious little in making his case and has no effective defense for even one of his points.

Thanks Tomster - I appreciate the affirmation. This thread is now nearly three weeks old, so it is high time for Parker to either defend his OP in a scholarly way or admit he can’t. So far his basic defense is to post some Bible citations that say the Word of God is important, and then challenged people to prove a negative (i.e., “Prove that SS is not in the Bible” and “Prove that no one taught SS prior to the Protestant Reformation”). If I were to give Parker an objective and honest critique of the quality of his material in this thread, I would say that if he were in a Protestant university doing an essay in defense of Sola Scriptura, and defended it in the manner he has done in this thread, he would probably get an F. And just to be clear, I am not judging him as a person, but I’m only judging the quality of his responses thus far in this thread. It is also worth pointing out that this is a thread that he, himself, started with the implication that he would back up his statement that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, biblical. So far he has not done this, at least not in an academically credible way.

After saying this I would like to add that we Catholics CAN show that the doctrinal authority, or magisterium, with which Christ has equipped his Church includes all the rights and privileges necessary for the effective teaching of divine revelation and guarding intact the deposit of faith.

We can show definitively that Christ has willed that the human race as a whole should acquire God’s truth, not by individual inspiration, nor by the private interpretation of Scripture, but by attending to the living voice of the Church, His Mystical Body.

And to you I likewise say, “Well said!” I think this is a very succinct and yet encompassing description of the Magisterium and its purpose.

What Parker fails to understand or will not admit is the fact that while he denies the teaching authority of the Catholic Church most Protestants adhere to the teachings (read: oral tradition) of their own particular ecclesial communities. By doing so, by blindly accepting those teachings, they actually refute their most hallowed man-made tradition, i.e. sola scriptura, all by themselves.

The contradiction of their position is so glaring it is amazing they don’t see it.

I’ve been trying to demonstrate this very contradiction in this thread with the Parker’s acceptance of the Old & New Testament Canons (for example, in my Book of Enoch Challenge).

As you know, there are other Traditions that Protestants accept as well, such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the practice of transferring the observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Neither of these Traditions can be entirely defined by an exegetical examination of Scripture alone (for example, some aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity can, but not the fullness of what it teaches). If Sola Scriptura is true, then all Christian doctrines have to be demonstrated through a purely exegetical examination of the Bible, because as soon as someone starts utilizing eisogesis then they step away from what the text clearly says and embrace someone’s subjective interpretation (and the practice being defended is supposed to be “Sola Scriptura”, not “Sola Scriptura Plus the Subjective Interpretations of People I Happen to Agree With from an Ideological Standpoint”). And, of course, the teaching of Sola Scriptura itself fails this same test.

 

[EricFilmer]

Thanks Tomster - I appreciate the affirmation. This thread is now nearly three weeks old, so it is high time for Parker to either defend his OP in a scholarly way or admit he can’t. So far his basic for the validity of Sola Scriptura is to post some Bible citations that say the Word of God is important, and then challenge people to prove a negative (i.e., “Prove that SS is not in the Bible” and “Prove that no one taught SS prior to the Protestant Reformation”). If I were to give Parker an objective and honest critique of the quality of his material in this thread, I would say that if he were in a Protestant university doing an essay in defense of Sola Scriptura, and defended it in the manner he has done in this thread, he would probably get an F. And just to be clear, I am not judging him as a person, but I’m only judging the quality of his responses thus far in this thread. It is also worth pointing out that this is a thread that he, himself, started with the implication that he would back up his statement that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, biblical. So far he has not done this, at least not in an academically credible way.

And to you I likewise say, “Well said!” I think this is a very succinct and yet encompassing description of the Magisterium and its purpose.

I’ve been trying to demonstrate this very contradiction in this thread with the Parker’s acceptance of the Old & New Testament Canons (for example, in my Book of Enoch Challenge).

As you know, there are other Traditions that Protestants accept as well, such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the practice of transferring the observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Neither of these Traditions can be entirely defined by an exegetical examination of Scripture alone (for example, some aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity can, but not the fullness of what it teaches). If Sola Scriptura is true, then all Christian doctrines have to be demonstrated through a purely exegetical examination of the Bible, because as soon as someone starts utilizing eisogesis then they step away from what the text clearly says and embrace someone’s subjective interpretation (and the practice being defended is supposed to be “Sola Scriptura”, not “Sola Scriptura Plus the Subjective Interpretations of People I Happen to Agree With from an Ideological Standpoint”). And, of course, the teaching of Sola Scriptura itself fails this same test.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not waiting for his response. None will be forthcoming. Basically, he has two choices:

1. He can admit that scripture was defined by the authority of the Catholic Church. Once he does this, he will be forced to swim the Tiber. This is a life changing decision that will take time, prayer and humility. This thought process will likely not occur on these pages, but will be done in private.
2. He can continue to Protest against the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestants are effectively forced to believe in Sola Scripture, since they deny the other two sources of divine inspiration and knowledge: Tradition and the teaching of the Magesterium.

The real question to ask any Protestant is what are they Protesting against. **Usually its a protest against a strawman **- what they think the Church is rather than what it REALLY is. As Blessed Cardinal Newman said, To know the Fathers is to become Catholic. The other reason is that they don’t like what the Catholic Church teaches, many times because it is inconvenient to them. To these, I answer that the truth is the truth and we must bend ourselves to it becuase surely the truth will not change for our desires.

Hi Paul,
I am not taking this personally, however, I hope that I have never, ever appeared to have erected a strawman by which to argue against the Catholic Church.

RE: #2. Do you include Orthodoxy here?

Jon

 

[Tomster]

Thanks Tomster - I appreciate the affirmation. This thread is now nearly three weeks old, so it is high time for Parker to either defend his OP in a scholarly way or admit he can’t. So far his basic defense is to post some Bible citations that say the Word of God is important, and then challenged people to prove a negative (i.e., “Prove that SS is not in the Bible” and “Prove that no one taught SS prior to the Protestant Reformation”). If I were to give Parker an objective and honest critique of the quality of his material in this thread, I would say that if he were in a Protestant university doing an essay in defense of Sola Scriptura, and defended it in the manner he has done in this thread, he would probably get an F. And just to be clear, I am not judging him as a person, but I’m only judging the quality of his responses thus far in this thread. It is also worth pointing out that this is a thread that he, himself, started with the implication that he would back up his statement that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, biblical. So far he has not done this, at least not in an academically credible way.

Eric,

Right on brother!

And to you I likewise say, “Well said!” I think this is a very succinct and yet encompassing description of the Magisterium and its purpose.

I’ve been trying to demonstrate this very contradiction in this thread with the Parker’s acceptance of the Old & New Testament Canons (for example, in my Book of Enoch Challenge).

As you know, there are other Traditions that Protestants accept as well, such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the practice of transferring the observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Neither of these Traditions can be entirely defined by an exegetical examination of Scripture alone (for example, some aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity can, but not the fullness of what it teaches). If Sola Scriptura is true, then all Christian doctrines have to be demonstrated through a purely exegetical examination of the Bible, because as soon as someone starts utilizing eisogesis then they step away from what the text clearly says and embrace someone’s subjective interpretation (and the practice being defended is supposed to be “Sola Scriptura”, not “Sola Scriptura Plus the Subjective Interpretations of People I Happen to Agree With from an Ideological Standpoint”). And, of course, the teaching of Sola Scriptura itself fails this same test.

 

[Tomster]

Thanks Tomster - I appreciate the affirmation. This thread is now nearly three weeks old, so it is high time for Parker to either defend his OP in a scholarly way or admit he can’t. So far his basic defense is to post some Bible citations that say the Word of God is important, and then challenged people to prove a negative (i.e., “Prove that SS is not in the Bible” and “Prove that no one taught SS prior to the Protestant Reformation”). If I were to give Parker an objective and honest critique of the quality of his material in this thread, I would say that if he were in a Protestant university doing an essay in defense of Sola Scriptura, and defended it in the manner he has done in this thread, he would probably get an F. And just to be clear, I am not judging him as a person, but I’m only judging the quality of his responses thus far in this thread. It is also worth pointing out that this is a thread that he, himself, started with the implication that he would back up his statement that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, biblical. So far he has not done this, at least not in an academically credible way.

And to you I likewise say, “Well said!” I think this is a very succinct and yet encompassing description of the Magisterium and its purpose.

I’ve been trying to demonstrate this very contradiction in this thread with the Parker’s acceptance of the Old & New Testament Canons (for example, in my Book of Enoch Challenge).

As you know, there are other Traditions that Protestants accept as well, such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the practice of transferring the observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Neither of these Traditions can be entirely defined by an exegetical examination of Scripture alone (for example, some aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity can, but not the fullness of what it teaches). If Sola Scriptura is true, then all Christian doctrines have to be demonstrated through a purely exegetical examination of the Bible, because as soon as someone starts utilizing eisogesis then they step away from what the text clearly says and embrace someone’s subjective interpretation (and the practice being defended is supposed to be “Sola Scriptura”, not “Sola Scriptura Plus the Subjective Interpretations of People I Happen to Agree With from an Ideological Standpoint”). And, of course, the teaching of Sola Scriptura itself fails this same test.

Eric,

Right on brother!

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I’m not waiting for his response. None will be forthcoming. Basically, he has two choices:

Jon, You are so close to Catholic already that I will be shocked if you don’t eventually swim the Tiber

RE: #2. Do you include Orthodoxy here?

The orthodox recognize the authority of the church both tradition and the magesterium- they are not sola scripturists. They will even recognize the Church of Rome as the first among equals - hopefully sometime soon they will recognize that you can’t be both first and equal.

 

[NolePaul2011]

Sola Scripture is NOT Biblical and it s NOT logical…

Parker, if they were, answer this question…

Why are there 33,000+ Protestant denominations?

If Sola Scripture was true, then why so many intrepetations? Why do we have many individuals like Harold Camping, and others with their own beliefs, etc?

There is a reason that Jesus established the Catholic Church and an authority to help us intrepet scripture. There is a reason why there is only ONE Catholic Church and 33,000+ Protestant denominations…

 

[inkaneer]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   I think 2 Thess 2:15 makes your wishfull thinking null and void.
   
   So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]
   
   *Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. * [2 Thess 2:15 KJV]
   
   God’s word is immutable. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Those words penned by Paul almost 2,000 years ago are just as valid today as they were when the ink was still wet. 2Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire.

 

[JonNC]

I think 2 Thess 2:15 makes your wishfull thinking null and void.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]

*Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. * [2 Thess 2:15 KJV]

God’s word is immutable. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Those words penned by Paul almost 2,000 years ago are just as valid today as they were when the ink was still wet. 2Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire.

As sola scriptura does not exclude tradition, I’m at a loss how this is the case.

Jon

 

[lampstand]

If sola scriptura includes tradition, shouldn’t it be called not-sola Scriptura?

You can’t be ‘only’ something ‘and’ something else. That’s why the word is ‘only.’

 

[Ignatius]

As sola scriptura does not exclude tradition, I’m at a loss how this is the case.

Your version of Sola Scriptura doesn’t, there are plenty of Protestants that believe that it means Scripture Alone, in fact the vast majority are in that category. If Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone) then why not drop the Sola and the whole issue is solved. Or, why not change the term to be more in line with what it means, like Scriptura et Traditio benefacientes. The trouble with Sola Scriptura is that it can mean any thing depending on who you are talking to.

Before trying to promote Sola Scriptura perhaps you could all get together and come up with an definition that is Authoritatively held by all Protestants first.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Before trying to promote Sola Scriptura perhaps you could all get together and come up with an definition that is Authoritatively held by all Protestants first.

lol. Great idea. Unfortunately, I suspect that, at this point, that would be even more disasterously futile than the original synod of reformers who tried to come to a consensus on the meaning of the Eucharist…

 

[NolePaul2011]

Your version of Sola Scriptura doesn’t, there are plenty of Protestants that believe that it means Scripture Alone, in fact the vast majority are in that category. If Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone) then why not drop the Sola and the whole issue is solved. Or, why not change the term to be more in line with what it means, like Scriptura et Traditio benefacientes. The trouble with Sola Scriptura is that it can mean any thing depending on who you are talking to.

Before trying to promote Sola Scriptura perhaps you could all get together and come up with an definition that is Authoritatively held by all Protestants first.

One problem…the don’t have that one authority…I guess if they did, there wouldn’t be the 33,000+ demoninations there are today…

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I think 2 Thess 2:15 makes your wishfull thinking null and void.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. [2 Thess 2:15 KJV]

God’s word is immutable. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Those words penned by Paul almost 2,000 years ago are just as valid today as they were when the ink was still wet. 2Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire.

As sola scriptura does not exclude tradition, I’m at a loss how this is the case.

Jon

Are you denying the sola part of sola scriptura? Sola does mean alone or only. That excludes tradition and anything else. By the way what exactly is your definition of “tradition”? I am not sure we established that.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I think 2 Thess 2:15 makes your wishfull thinking null and void.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. [2 Thess 2:15 KJV]

God’s word is immutable. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Those words penned by Paul almost 2,000 years ago are just as valid today as they were when the ink was still wet. 2Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire.

Are you denying the sola part of sola scriptura? Sola does mean alone or only. That excludes tradition and anything else. By the way what exactly is your definition of “tradition”? I am not sure we established that.

While I, as a convert to Catholicism, fully agree that this verse helps show that sola Scriptura is wrong, I think you’re asking him the wrong question. Rather than try to make him see that his definition of SS is contrary to the name for SS - which he probably thinks is irrelevant because, just as, according to SS he has the right and freedom to interpret Scripture any way he likes, he also believes that he has the right and freedom to interpret SS any way he likes - why not ask him what tradition is being extolled in 2 Thess 2:15, his less-than-500-year-old Protestant traditions, or the Tradition of the Apostles, as delivered from Christ? Then, whichever one he chooses, ask him how he knows that’s the tradition Jesus handed down… You won’t get anywhere telling him his definition of SS isn’t the “right” one; why should he accept your definition of SS at all? We don’t even believe in any definition of SS, so he can pretty much assume that any definition we try to substitute for his is going to be designed specifically to show him the flaws in SS. I’m sure his definition is thoroughly flawed, but you’ll never get him to see that if you don’t even acknowledge that his definition has a right to be analyzed…

 

[Debra_C]

You just don’t like the idea because you can’t prove the idea is unbiblical.

Parker

HOw about the following:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (NAB)
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This is the passage I most oftren hear quoted as grounds for Sola Scriptura. However, you notice it does not ban using other means of teaching, correcting, refutation, etc. IT merely states the scriptures are infallible and useful for such. The Catholic Church believes this just as the Protestants do. Interestingly enough, while we consider this text in itself scripture, Paul did not. The scriptures Paul is referring to consist of the Old Testament only. The NEw Testament canon had not yet been set, and in fact, it is believed by most biblical scholars that the epistles of St. Paul were the earliest books of our New Testament written, preceding even the recording of the Gospel accounts.

2 Thessalonians 2:15-17 (NAB)
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.

This is another little clip that many have used to try to support a doctrine of sola scriptura… notice it says hold fast to what we have taught you by word or letter. Remember that neither at the time of Paul’s writing the letter it is contained in were considered scripture. It is unlikely that Paul even anticipated it being declared scripture in the future. This passage in fact supports the use of orally communicated teachings as are included in Apostolic Tradition rather than sola scriptura.

Additionally, while you claim that sola scriptura may not deny the concept of magisterial authority or oral tradition, that is precisely the reason for its adoption during the reform movement. That way they could easily excuse themselves from listening to the pope.

While the Catholic Church would agree that no doctrine directly contradicted by scripture, which we believe to be the infallible word of God can be sustained, the idea that EVERYTHING the Church believes must be explicitly stated in the Bible is not supported anywhere in the scriptures. The claim, in fact, is pretty well ridiculous on its face if you take the time to consider how we came to have said scriptures in the first place. Even the Old Testament was first an oral tradition of the Jewish people that over time was recorded and formed into a uniform canon by religious and cultural authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Jewish people, by the way, still hold many additional “sacred” books which are part of their teaching tradition but not considered infallible and inspired Word of God to be included in the OT canon. ie Not until the Protestant Reformation’s beginnings did anyone, Christian or Jew, seriously question the value of oral tradition as a valued and sacred teaching tool to be used along side the Bible.

 

[fbl9]

Your version of Sola Scriptura doesn’t, there are plenty of Protestants that believe that it means Scripture Alone, in fact the vast majority are in that category. If Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone) then why not drop the Sola and the whole issue is solved. Or, why not change the term to be more in line with what it means, like Scriptura et Traditio benefacientes. The trouble with Sola Scriptura is that it can mean any thing depending on who you are talking to.

Before trying to promote Sola Scriptura perhaps you could all get together and come up with an definition that is Authoritatively held by all Protestants first.

What you are describing here, imop, is the difference between solo and **sola **scripture.
To my understanding sola scripture doesn’t leave one free to willy nilly scripture, but they are tied to the church’s understanding. Solo scripture leaves people free to go willy nilly with scripture.

 

[paul_c]

Current events offer great insight into arguments like this.

Scripture is misused or misinterpreted daily by people. Sometimes this is only to the detriment of themselves, but sometimes the implications go further. Harold Camping was seemingly convinced that he alone had scriptural insight that no one else had and he was able to convince others of this fact as well. So when he declared that scripture said that the rapture was going to happen on May 21, 2011 he did so with the whole authority of sola scriptura. People believing in the authority of scripture gave away their belonging and even euthanized their pets. And as we all know, the rapture never happened (and never will, because its an erroneous interpretation of the bible.

And Harold Camping is not the only one to misinterpret scripture, deliberately or otherwise… It started with Satan, who used scripture to tempt Jesus in the desert. Charles Manson used his personal interpretation of Revelations to con his followers into depravity that ultimately led to murder. James Jones led an entire group into mass suicide while quoting scripture.

The fact is, history has shown again and again that scripture can be easily bent to support the desires of the evil and the delusional. In the wrong hands, scripture can be as dangerous as it is beneficial in the hands of someone with the correct interpretation. So who can be trusted to interpret scripture appropriately? Only the Catholic Church, to which it was entrusted by God in the first place.