Not By Scripture Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
One of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism is the doctrine of “sola scriptura” or “scripture alone” - which alleges that the Bible - as interpreted by the individual believer - is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed.

Therefore, in order for the doctrine of “sola scriptura” to be believable, it must be found within the pages of Sacred Scripture; otherwise, “sola scriptura” is a self-refuting doctrine and an extra-Biblical “tradition of men” that should be rejected as a false theological novelty.

Unfortunately for those who hold this doctrine, there is not a single verse of scripture which actually declares that the Bible alone is to be viewed as the believer’s sole rule of faith. In fact, the Bible repeatedly directs us to hold fast to “traditions” and teachings passed on orally by the Apostles. Thus, “sola scriptura” is not only un-Biblical but anti-Biblical.

The challenge for Protestants who cling to this false teaching is to answer the question: Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?
 
Sheesh. Not one Protestant willing to stand up for this pillar of their faith?

Well, that was easy! 👍
 
Randy_Carson said:
Sheesh. Not one Protestant willing to stand up for this pillar of their faith?

Well, that was easy! 👍
Click to expand...
A better question is where does the Bible teach that divine revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle (as Protestants claim)? In otherwords where does the Bible teach that no more Scripture could be written after a given date?
 
I think this scripture is the most telling:

2 Cor 3:2: You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men;
3: and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4: Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God.

and this:

John 5:39: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
40: yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Catholic_Dude said:
A better question is where does the Bible teach that divine revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle (as Protestants claim)? In otherwords where does the Bible teach that no more Scripture could be written after a given date?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the Protestants may be right??? 🙂

If it is meant by divine revelation, that which was revealed to the apostles by Christ Himself (St. Paul being the exception here) then that kind of revelation is now closed.

However, while the Blessed Virgin may appear to Bernadette or the three children at Fatima, they are considered as private revelations that are not binding on the faithful as a de fide requirement for all Catholics.

But there is an answer to your questions -

The Bible does not teach these things, but the Church does! 😃

By Her authority has she determined these things… 👍

Something about the “keys of the kingdom” and “binding and loosing”… :cool:

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

*I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.*
  • The Apostles Creed -
 
This always bugs me, that rarely Protestants attempt a worthy defense of sola-scriptura.

Be on the lookout, I may do some review and present an argument that is hopefully better than what most of our friendly evangelical “never thought about Scripture/Tradition” brothers would be aware of.

But it will take some review. And that’s ok, it’s good for me.

Happy Advent
 
Reformed_Rob said:
This always bugs me, that rarely Protestants attempt a worthy defense of sola-scriptura.

Be on the lookout, I may do some review and present an argument that is hopefully better than what most of our friendly evangelical “never thought about Scripture/Tradition” brothers would be aware of.

But it will take some review. And that’s ok, it’s good for me.

Happy Advent
Click to expand...
Careful…Thats how Scott Hahn started…👍
 
Reformed_Rob said:
This always bugs me, that rarely Protestants attempt a worthy defense of sola-scriptura.

Be on the lookout, I may do some review and present an argument that is hopefully better than what most of our friendly evangelical “never thought about Scripture/Tradition” brothers would be aware of.

But it will take some review. And that’s ok, it’s good for me.

Happy Advent
Click to expand...
I think the best really that can be attempted is the Bereans in Acts, yet this falls short because what is missed is that Paul had to teach them first, to open up scripture for them. As well it was the OT, he was giving them a completely new revelation in Jesus Christ. Left to scriptue alone they obviously missed Jesus originally and they didn’t see him in there.

What he also taught them was scriptures concerning Jesus himself. However many of Jesus teachings are not found in the OT; how many times do you forgive your brother? Marriage and divorce/one flesh, God as “Abba”, the mystical body of Jesus and his church (Ephesians) and so on and on.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Randy_Carson said:
One of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism is the doctrine of “sola scriptura” or “scripture alone” - which alleges that the Bible - as interpreted by the individual believer - is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed.
Click to expand...
Randy,

Not to put too big a damper on your thread here, but most Protestants and Evangelicals do not believe that version of Sola Scriptura. The usual version of that doctrine is that Scripture is the final authority (as distinct from Scripture-and-Tradition) and that no doctrine or practice can contradict Scripture. The only time an Evangelical practices the form of Sola Scriptura that you describe is when he is challenging somebody else’s doctrine or practice.
  • Liberian
 
So, that sounds like one of those non-tradition Traditions. Man made, none the less. :rotfl:
 
Originally Posted by Randy Carson
One of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism is the doctrine of “sola scriptura” or “scripture alone” - which alleges that the Bible - as interpreted by the individual believer - is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed.
Liberian said:
Randy,

Not to put too big a damper on your thread here, but most Protestants and Evangelicals do not believe that version of Sola Scriptura. The usual version of that doctrine is that Scripture is the final authority (as distinct from Scripture-and-Tradition) and that no doctrine or practice can contradict Scripture. The only time an Evangelical practices the form of Sola Scriptura that you describe is when he is challenging somebody else’s doctrine or practice.
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
Er, ah, as a matter of fact, I have yet to see a solid definition of Sola Scriptura from the Protestants and Evangelicals! 🙂

Many will point to James White’s definition, but in the long run, you come to the ultimate truth, which is Randy’s point - when they debate us Catholics - that it indeed, boils-down to an “individual believer.”

I’ve “rubbed their nose in it” for years in CARM, that the ultimate-ultimate is - They become their "own pope."

Kerep 'um straight in CARM, Liberian! 🙂 I’ll return after the New Year sometime. :cool:

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Veni Creator Spiritus

*Veni Creator Spiritus,
Mentes tuorum visita,
Imple superna gratia
Quae ti creasti pecatora.

Qui diceris Paraclitus,
Altissimi donum Dei,
Fons vivus, ignis, caritas,
Et spiritalis unctio.

Tu septiformis munere,
Digitus Patenae dexterae,
Tu rite promissum Patris,
Sermone ditans guttura.

Accende lumen sensibus,
infunde amorem cordilbus,
Inferma nostri corpis
Virtute firmans perpeti.

Hostem repellas longuis,
Pacemque dones protinus,
Ductore sic to praevio,

Per te sciamus da Patrem,

Noscamus atque Filium,

Teque utriusque Spiritum
Credamus omni tempore.

Deo Patri sit gloria,
Et Filio, quia mortuis

Surrexit, ac Paracito,
in saecculoriium saecula, Amen.*

Gregorian chant - God’s Music!

bellsouthpwp2.net/p/u/putnam_w/music/Veni_Creator.mp3
 
ccfbob said:
So, that sounds like one of those non-tradition Traditions. Man made, none the less. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
If you are speaking of Sola Scriptura, absolutely! 🙂

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
 
Liberian said:
Randy,

Not to put too big a damper on your thread here, but most Protestants and Evangelicals do not believe that version of Sola Scriptura. The usual version of that doctrine is that Scripture is the final authority (as distinct from Scripture-and-Tradition) and that no doctrine or practice can contradict Scripture. The only time an Evangelical practices the form of Sola Scriptura that you describe is when he is challenging somebody else’s doctrine or practice.
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
Perhaps I missed the memo…what is the current or predominant Protestant definition of sola scriptura?
 
I already came up with the best definition of Sola Scriptura a few months ago:
Sola Scriptura: As a Protestant you are free to interpret almost anything you want out of the Bible as long as it doesnt agree with the Catholic interpretation.
 
There is one school of thought that says that Scripture should be interpreted by other Scripture and secondarily by the early Creeds and tertiarily by the tradition of the Fathers. And then they interpret the Fathers in a non-Catholic way. And then it goes down hill from there. For instance, when the Fathers disagree with what they believe, then they say the Fathers disagree with eachother and more importantly disagree with Scripture.

That’s a somewhat historical approach that some Protestant groups take.

That’s not an argument, that’s an observation. Just so you know it’s out there, but you’re not likely to come across such an approach to sola scriptura.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Perhaps I missed the memo…what is the current or predominant Protestant definition of sola scriptura?
Click to expand...
There is a prodominant Protestant definition? :eek:

I have been looking for it for years, and the closest I can come is what James R. White says it is. (At least many will refer to him as their definition of it.)

But I run into differences from that definitiion as well, including hte proposition that scripture is “self-interpreting.” Dave Armstrong, in his blog/site, puts the big hurt on that idea as I recall. So does Robert Sungenis in his *Not by Scripture Alone * in one of the best refutations of Sola Scriptura I have seen in a long while.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
 
Reformed_Rob said:
There is one school of thought that says that Scripture should be interpreted by other Scripture and secondarily by the early Creeds and tertiarily by the tradition of the Fathers. And then they interpret the Fathers in a non-Catholic way. And then it goes down hill from there. For instance, when the Fathers disagree with what they believe, then they say the Fathers disagree with eachother and more importantly disagree with Scripture.

That’s a somewhat historical approach that some Protestant groups take.

That’s not an argument, that’s an observation. Just so you know it’s out there, but you’re not likely to come across such an approach to sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have run into that in times past.

Every effort I have seen to find disagreement among the early fathers is sparce indeed, mostly in times before a doctrine was defined when there was a natural debate as to what scripture teaches on certain issues. What is ignored is the remarkable agreement the early fathers had on most of not all doctrinal maters that convinced me of where I must go to discern the whole truth of what Christ taught - The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. :cool:

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
 
Randy_Carson said:
Perhaps I missed the memo…what is the current or predominant Protestant definition of sola scriptura?
Click to expand...
Randy,

It is my observation that it depends on the circumstance. If you are asking them to justify or prove Sola Scriptura or to justify one of their practices (like the wearing of wedding rings), it is that no doctrine or practice can contradict the Bible–which is pretty much the teaching of the Catholic Church. If they are asking you to justify or prove something like the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory, it is that every doctrine must be found explicitly in the Bible.

Like us (at least like me), most Protestants need to be kept honest.
  • Liberian
 
Ok, without me taking a lot of time, let me give a psychological, not so doctrinal, reply.

Many Protestants and Evangelicals look for principles in order to formulate what they believe and also to support what they already believe. We do the same thing as Catholics. Development of doctrine comes to mind.

So a principle that I believe and I think actually is foundational to the sola scriptura is:
  • God’s word is of utmost authority
    And we would agree. So there is another principle that is relied upon for the s-s
  • In times past there were prophets and Jesus was here and the Apostles, but they wrote books and so now we go by what they wrote since they’re not here
    Logistically, we would agree. The Apostles aren’t here, Jesus isn’t “here” with us teaching in the same sense He was 1975 years ago. Of course we understand He is here in the Eucharist and teaching authority of the Church, Bishops are successors of the Apostles, etc. But you know what I mean.
So the Protestant sees this written book and everybody in the Western world that reads knows that you can’t trust oral hand me downs. It has to be written. And now it’s getting to be you need pictures and movies for it to be credible. But that’s another story.

So to today’s mindset, you have this principle that God’s Word is authoratative. Couple that with the mindset that you can’t trust oral type traditions, it has to be written to be credible, and I believe it’s pretty obvious which most people are going to lean towards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top