Protestant defense of sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter jennyhay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jennyhay

Guest
I would like recommendations on the best protestant defenses of sola scriptura. Length and level of difficulty are not issues. I want to know the most compelling arguments out there.

Thanks
 
That’s easy. All you have to do is show people the part in the Bible that explains how the Bible **alone **is the sole rule of faith, and you have a slam dunk.🙂
 
Hi jennyhay,

The one verse I found most Protestants use for Sola-Scriptura is:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
Click to expand...
Of course, they don’t accept when I tell them it says All Scripture is profitable, not Only Scripture is profitable.

The other point I like to use is when Jesus gave the Great Commission:
Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.
Click to expand...
Jesus told them to preach and teach, He never said “Go give everyone a copy of the Holy Scriptures and let them figure it out for themselves. Oh and by the way, when I give you the inspiration for the New testament, everything you teach can be ignored, since what I want everyone to know and do will be written down for them.”

Granted, this all falls on deaf ears, but it sure makes me feel stronger for what I believe, Prima-Scriptura.

With love and prayers for a blessed Christmas.
George
 
RC Sproll said the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. I think Steve Wood said this in his talk on Sola Scriptora, an excellent tape. This obviously isn’t a good defense, but I have no idea how they get by the fact that the Bible did not come with a table of contents.

They depend upon Protestant tradition to know what books the Bible should contain while we depend upon Catholic Tradition. One of these traditions is a tradition of men while, I believe, the other is not. But in any case you can’t have the Bible alone without a form of T(t)radition.
 
I’ve not read Calvin’s works, but I suspect that they might be good sources for you. I would also go to a protestant apologetics website and ask your question there. You’d be more likely to get responses and suggestions from people who actually believe sola scriptura, as opposed to here.
 
My whole guide for getting through this life the best way I can and live as God would want me to is the Holy Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This spells it out in black and white for me. 😃
 
Blue_Serenity said:
My whole guide for getting through this life the best way I can and live as God would want me to is the Holy Bible.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This spells it out in black and white for me. 😃
Click to expand...
Blue Serenity:

Of course, the scripture the author is referring to is HEBREW SCRIPTURE, also known as the Old Testament.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
 
jennyhay said:
I have read Dave Armstrong’s books, so I’m familiar with the basic arguments. I guess I’m looking for the best that Protestantism has to offer, so that I can be prepared. For example, this book by Mathison looks half-way thoughtful.

amazon.com/o/ASIN/1885767749/ref=pd_rvi_gw_2/002-0197885-2808874

Anything better?
Click to expand...
Mathison’s book is probably the best Protestant defense of sola scriptura in print. As a Catholic response, I’d recommend Robert Sungenis’ text, Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Sungenis also provides a critique of Mathison’s book on his website at www.catholicintl.com. Happy reading!

Dominus vobiscum,

Don
+T+
 
conceived. Luther decided Church tradition was no longer valid, and that the essentials of the faith were to be found only in the Bible. The Bible held forth the promises of the Psalmist and Paul, both of whom said that if the believer simply BELIEVED, eg, had iron faith, he would be saved. That’s what it all comes down to. Of course, Luther ignored the parts of the Bible that contradicted Paul, such as the Book of James, which he hated. Luther was an illogical thinker. When Erasmus pinned him down on the issue of predestination, Luther broke off the disputation and fell silent. It was the only disputation he lost, and one that even today defines the basic psychological differences between Catholics and Protestants. Erasmus argued that if God had already chosen the saved before creating Man, Luther’s ‘theology of the cross’ made no sense. Jesus’ death had no purpose. Luther had no response.👍
 
PauloFreire2 said:
conceived. Luther decided Church tradition was no longer valid, and that the essentials of the faith were to be found only in the Bible. The Bible held forth the promises of the Psalmist and Paul, both of whom said that if the believer simply BELIEVED, eg, had iron faith, he would be saved. That’s what it all comes down to. Of course, Luther ignored the parts of the Bible that contradicted Paul, such as the Book of James, which he hated. Luther was an illogical thinker. When Erasmus pinned him down on the issue of predestination, Luther broke off the disputation and fell silent. It was the only disputation he lost, and one that even today defines the basic psychological differences between Catholics and Protestants. Erasmus argued that if God had already chosen the saved before creating Man, Luther’s ‘theology of the cross’ made no sense. Jesus’ death had no purpose. Luther had no response.👍
Click to expand...
Actually, Luther did respond directly to Erasmus on the issue of free will and predestination. Luther’s rejoinder is a book by the name of “The Bondage of the Will”.
 
jennyhay said:
I would like recommendations on the best protestant defenses of sola scriptura. Length and level of difficulty are not issues. I want to know the most compelling arguments out there.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Where do you people come up with these names? It’s not in the bible is it? So why discuss it?
 
R. C. Sproul – a well respected sola Scriptura/sola fide Presbyterian, makes a simple argument: up until the canon was closed in the 4th Century, we needed the Church but after that, the pillars were no longer needed and Scripture could stand above everything as the sole rule of faith.
 
Rferg said:
Where do you people come up with these names? It’s not in the bible is it? So why discuss it?
Click to expand...
LOL! I see your profile says you are a Bible Christian. So I guess that means you’re a Catholic. Since the Bible does not state that the Bible is the sole rule of faith (sola Scriptura), a Bible Christian is not interested in discussing it. Good point.
 
Rferg said:
Where do you people come up with these names? It’s not in the bible is it? So why discuss it?
Click to expand...
The doctrine of sola scriptura is not in the Bible. So why do people believe it? 🙂 This is why there is discussion 🙂
 
mercygate said:
R. C. Sproul – a well respected sola Scriptura/sola fide Presbyterian, makes a simple argument: up until the canon was closed in the 4th Century, we needed the Church but after that, the pillars were no longer needed and Scripture could stand above everything as the sole rule of faith.
Click to expand...
Has Rev. Sproul written any books on the subject?
 
lak611 said:
Has Rev. Sproul written any books on the subject?
Click to expand...
If you go to his web site: www.ligonier.org (I think), you should find tracts and books on it. Sproul has the advantage of many self-proclaimed Bible Christians in that he actually understands that the Church is responsible for defining the canon. He won’t use the words “Catholic Church” but he certainly knows that there was only one game in town (not counting heretics), and that it was the Church from which the New Testament emerged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top