Practicality of sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Potato1237
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church_Militant said:
Hey buddy. 🙂 It’s not true and can be easily shown directly from the Word of God.
Mark 4 [34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

***This is the same reason that we know that Our Blessed Lord meant what He said in John 6…because had He meant anything but what He literally said there we know from the above verse that he would have explained it…yet He did not.

Have a blessed Sunday at Mass.:signofcross:
Did He? You’ll have to show me where then because I’ve read the Bible several times and I’ve never seen that. I’ve seen verses ripped out of context and used to preach that but the context always shoots them down.
Click to expand...
You are right. I just checked the source where I got it from and did some snooping around. Turns out they are anti Catholic. They certainly are not even reliable considering they claim Matthew 16:18 says this: “On this rock I will build my church and it will go only by the scriptures”. Absolutely insane. Thanks for the answer 🙂
 
Potato1237 said:
Hey guys, I have a question. We know that sola scriptura is a relatively new invention, but I’m beginning to think about something. We know that Christ taught nothing in secret, and that the goal he gave to his disciples was to spread the gospel. So, could it simply be logical that sola scriptura is true, if everything that Christ taught is in scripture, why would we need anything else?

God bless,
Potato1237 🙂
Click to expand...
The bolded is where you went wrong. Not everything that Christ taught is in scripture.
 
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and not logical:
  1. The people that hold to the idea of Sola Scriptura…how do they know what books in the Bible are supposed to be in the Bible? Where in Scripture is the “sacred list of books”?
    Anybody that has a Bible and believes all the books contained therein are inspired by God has to accept that somewhere prior to their birth a group of humans selected those books, and did not select others. The books of the Bible are there through Sacred Tradition and not Sola Scriptura.
  2. In line with the above point, the books of the New Testament are widely believed to be written between 60AD and 100 AD. The current list of books (the Canon) was not decided upon until 382AD (Council of Rome), So, when did Jesus’ commands / teachings, or the commands / teachings of the Apostles become authoritative and binding? When Christ or the Apostles spoke them or when they were written down many years later? Anybody that believes the former accepts the authority of Sacred Tradition.
  3. The early Church functioned for many years without a Bible / New Testament writings. So when do adherents of Sola Scriptura say Sola Scriptura became effective? 60AD? 100AD? 382AD? When there was an actual copy of the Bible to read? (prior to printing press, copies were hard to come by). And if they pick a year, where in the Bible does it say that is the year Sola Scriptura was to become effective?
  4. Sola Scriptura either by name or by implication is not in the Bible. If someone holds to the idea that the “Bible is the sole rule of faith”, then it has to say that in the Bible. If it does not, and they just believe it, then they believe it due to their own “tradition”.
  5. 1 Tim 3:15: “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” If Sola Scriptura is true, Paul would have said “Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth”. He did not, he said “the church” is.
  6. To elaborate on a previous post…there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations worldwide. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura…different people reading the Bible in a vacuum, apart from 2000 years of Sacred Tradition (or as I like to call it “sacred context”), coming up with their own interpretations.
 
I say that sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

Before one has the scriptures, they have to be collected, preserved, copied and canonized, something the Catholic Church did with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But let’s ignore that and pretend the Bible dropped out of the sky.

Read the Bible, it has to be interpreted to mean something. That is a tradition.

Then someone has to indicate that this tradition is correct and this be authoritative. That’s a magisterium.

Scripture, tradition, magisterium, looks like the Catholic way, not sola scriptura.

And don’t forget, there is not one verse that says we are to stick to the Bible alone.
 
It seems to me that Sola Scriptura is not practical for the this reason. While it is good to read Scripture and much good comes from its reading, it is also true that one can and so often misunderstands the meaning and what Scripture is saying. This the main problem with Sola Scritpura in that when every man can read and decide for oneself what Scripture says and means, chaos abounds due to its nature of it means and says whatever the individual wants it to mean and say.

Its very easy to say well I am guided by the Holy Spirit so I am right and correct in what I say Scripture says and means, but then each individual says the same thing, how then can all be right and correct in the interpretations they claim they say is the correct one? The Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos. With no man to guide them but their own self, one becomes open to misinterpretations and misunderstandings of Scripture. When one also cherry picks certain passages of Scripture to promote a idea they had prior to reading and combs Scripture to find passages that come close to what idea or thinking one has instead fostered an idea of meaning of one’s own and not of what Scripture actually said and meant. This also leads to distortions of the real meaning a passage of Scripture might mean and say, which is why it is so important that one refrain from deciding on one’s own what Scripture says and means without the aid of the Church to help and guide us in the proper understanding of what Scripture says and means
 
This 6 minute video from apologist extraordinaire Patrick Madrid is a absolute game changer:

youtube.com/watch?v=NnwHATcBbNE

Use these techniques and their practice really becomes indefensible.

If this doesn’t get your buddies to see the problems in SS then nothing will.
 
shockerfan said:
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and not logical:
  1. The early Church functioned for many years without a Bible / New Testament writings. So when do adherents of Sola Scriptura say Sola Scriptura became effective? 60AD? 100AD? 382AD? When there was an actual copy of the Bible to read? (prior to printing press, copies were hard to come by). And if they pick a year, where in the Bible does it say that is the year Sola Scriptura was to become effective?
  2. Sola Scriptura either by name or by implication is not in the Bible. If someone holds to the idea that the “Bible is the sole rule of faith”, then it has to say that in the Bible. If it does not, and they just believe it, then they believe it due to their own “tradition”.
Click to expand...
Hi!
…it is interesting… how “sola Scriptura” proponents ignore facts–they even ignore their own principles: a) ‘must be found in Scriptures,’ and b) ‘will not accept anything that is extra-Biblical.’

Either they truly do not understand what their principles are or they use hyper Chinese acrobatics to both maintain their claim (the Bible as their Authority–sola Scriptura) while rejecting the Church’s Authority as they apply their principles only to the Church and not to themselves (as long as a religious entity is not the Catholic Church all sola Scriptura and/or extra-Biblical restrictions need not apply). :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel
 
BobCatholic said:
I say that sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

Before one has the scriptures, they have to be collected, preserved, copied and canonized, something the Catholic Church did with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But let’s ignore that and pretend the Bible dropped out of the sky.

Read the Bible, it has to be interpreted to mean something. That is a tradition.

Then someone has to indicate that this tradition is correct and this be authoritative. That’s a magisterium.

Scripture, tradition, magisterium, looks like the Catholic way, not sola scriptura.

And don’t forget, there is not one verse that says we are to stick to the Bible alone.
Click to expand...
Hi, Bob!
…sola Scriptura proponents ignore all those facts…

They subscribe to “revelation by the Holy Spirit” as their proof that it works–this in spite of the fact that when you bring people together, regardless of their affiliations, they will interpret Scriptures through their own (or their group’s) preconceptions.

Don’t get me wrong–I am not stating that the Holy Spirit does not Guide man; I am actually stating that man, left to his own device, will choose to interpret Scriptures according to his own conceptions.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Thank you all! I guess we can agree sola scriptura is impractical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top