Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[E.E.N.S]

E.E.N.S.;1782865:

So then basically for about the first 1600 years sola scriptura would have been impossible? (The first 400 being that there was no “Bible” and after that there was very little literacy and no printing press.)

Don’t be silly. Of course there was a Bible. The OT existed and nearly every local parish had copies, though not complete of the NT writing from the time of the Apostles. To say there was no complete canon is one thing. But what you are saying is a gross exaggeration of the nature and availability of scripture and it’s use in the early church.

I am not arguing your other points but this one is very misleading. All early Christians had knoweldge fo the scriptures which were read to them every Sunday.

That is why I said “Bible”…I have made points earlier that would show that when others said this it was in reference to the Canon of the Bible, or even the New Testament. In the context of this thread (which I agree is quite long) the post should not have been misleading. My apologies if it was.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

So then basically for about the first 1600 years sola scriptura would have been impossible? (The first 400 being that there was no “Bible” and after that there was very little literacy and no printing press.)

You only misunderstand God’s Word and the Catholic Church, so it makes sense that you would think that way.

As St. Paul said (and is shown throughout history) God’s Word is living - both written and oral are to be adhered to.

I agree that the Bible was spoken orally before it was made, afterall, what did the apostles preach after Jesus died?
We are all called to be living witnesses of the Word in our daily lives. Hence, the written Word becomes oral.
How else to do account for missionary work done in countries who don’t know how to read and write?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Yes, but the Scriptures are not the only source of God’s word.

Agreed but it’s the only source I’d trust for complete Truth.

 

[Melchior]

Melchior;1782889:

E.E.N.S.;1782865:

So then basically for about the first 1600 years sola scriptura would have been impossible? (The first 400 being that there was no “Bible” and after that there was very little literacy and no printing press.)
That is why I said “Bible”…I have made points earlier that would show that when others said this it was in reference to the Canon of the Bible, or even the New Testament. In the context of this thread (which I agree is quite long) the post should not have been misleading. My apologies if it was.

Mea culpa. Having not read the entire thread I should have kept my mouth shut.

Mel

 

[E.E.N.S]

E.E.N.S.;1782918:

Melchior;1782889:

Mea culpa. Having not read the entire thread I should have kept my mouth shut.

Mel

No, you raised a good point, as I am sure many people have read only parts of this thread and could have been easily misconstrued.

 

[JaneFrances]

Sorry I’m tardy in my response!

Originally Posted by JaneFrances

So, logical necessity is the final rule of faith???

Sola Scriptura does not mean there has to be an explicit teaching of something in Scripture for it to be true.

Sure, you prefer this meaning of Sola Scripture. But, aren’t there other meaings which would challenge this? How about, for instance, the meaning espoused by Alexander Campbell, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Through his understanding of the meaning of Sola Scriptura, he rejected infant Baptism as, for him, Scripture was the final authority on the matter because it was silent.

Something can be taught in Scripture based “good and necessary consequence”( this is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith ).

Okay, but once again we are challenged to question the authority of the Westminster Confession. Why do you believe the Westminster Confession is correct? It seems to always return to the issue of AUTHORITY. You keep claiming that Scripture is your final authority, yet you are depending upon Confessions, your faith tradition, and your own logic to prove it as Scripture, itself does not claim final authority.

For example the dual natures of Christ is not an explicit teaching in Scripture, but it is arrived at based good and necessary consequence. Well, I believe the same is true for sola Scriptura. So the documentation I would offer for sola Scriptura is the Scriptures.

Is your documentation the fact that Scriptures exist? Or, is your documentation found within Sacred Scripture? To be specific, is there Scripture which provides documentation to prove Sola Scriptura, according to your preferred definition?

As I have said before sola Scriptura means the Scripture are the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

Right. And as I have asked before, how do you know this beyond your own logic and tradition?

Now this simple definition leads to other truth, such as it must be the final arbiter in disputes, because it alone is infallible.

Here is where I find a major contention. I thought, through Sacred Scripture, we are told that the Church is the final arbiter in disputes (see Matt. 18). Of course, for this to be true, one would also have to know which Church, which opens up a whole 'nother bag of worms. But, suffice it to say, you haven’t proven that Scriptures “must be the final arbiter in disputes” as 1) such a doctrine is unScriptural and 2) Scripture is silent on numerous matters.

It has to be the highest authority, because it is God speaking and nothing can be higher than the words of God himself.

This is only based on your faulty presupposition that our only knowledge of God’s Word is from Sacred Scripture.

Therefore, if there is nothing else that can be proven to be on par with Scripture it logically follows that sola Scriptura is true.

Let’s be clear. Scripture is true. Scripture is God’s Word. But, Scripture is not the only truth and it is not exclusively God’s Word. Your logic only works if this premise is true, which it is not.

Now to refute my argument one has to show that there is another source of equal or greater authority in the church then the word of God in Scripture.

I would offer that the Church, through the witness of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is the “pillar and bullwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). I would offer that Christ established a Church as His Body. I would offer that Christ’s Church, through the teaching authority of the apostles, is the entrusted steward of His Word. I would offer that His Word comes to us through word of mouth and letter, so that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are on par as two fonts from the same wellspring.

Now, a discussion of prima Scriptura versus sola Scriptura would be a great one. As would a discussion of the material and formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.

 

[historyb]

I already did. Do you really want me to quote Luke 1:76-77 again?

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways: 77 To give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins:

Luke 1:76-77

This most definitely does not speak to eternal Security.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Antonius Lupus:

I am not demanding, and if it came across that way then I heartily apologize. I am simply asking that you would show me, solely from the Bible, where it says that it is the sole judge of Tradition, and totally sufficient for the Faith.

OK, here we go. First, you are attacking a strawman. It is not necessary for the Scripture to say what you are asking for sola Scriptura to be true.

Here is how. It logically follows that if Scripture is God speaking there is not higher source, right? At best there can be an equal source, but not a higher, right? Therefore, God speaking judges all other things that are not its equal. If you think you have another source that is equal to God’s speaking then the onus is on you to prove this. Otherwise this point stands. BTW, even the great Athanasius agrees with this:

But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldy to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say. 3. For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved. (NPNF2: Vol. IV, Against the Heathen, Part III, §45. See also Robert W. Thomson, trans., Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 123-125.)

So once again, unless you can bring an equal or higher authority the above point is established.

Now, the next question is, is Scripture sufficient for the faith. Well, 2 Tim. 3:15-16 tells us the following:

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This verse teaches us that the Scriptures are sufficient to make one wise until salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. It is sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work, which is what it needs to be sufficient to do. And our friend Athanasius agrees once again.

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I History of the Councils, 6.

Antonius Lupus:

That after all is the definition of Sola Scriptura:

You are quite right and I have established both points. So the ball is in your court now.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways: 77 To give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins:

Luke 1:76-77

This most definitely does not speak to eternal Security.

It speaks of assurance of salvation, especially in verse 77. Of course, it is vague when left out of context with other scripture to support the case. Should I quote more?

 

[historyb]

Be my guest. I use to support Eternal Security and there are way better verses than you pulled out. In fact in my time defending that your the first I seen to pull that verse and put that spin on it.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

OK, here we go. First, you are attacking a strawman. It is not necessary for the Scripture to say what you are asking for sola Scriptura to be true.

Attacking a strawman? Really S.S., do you think I am really that devious?

The fact of the matter is that it is a legitamate question. I used to be a staunch Evangelical, and I was even an anti-Catholic. I debated with Catholics in the hope of rescuing them from the “yoke of Romanism”.

The simple fact of the matter is that Sola Scriptura (as defined by the Protestant Reformers) is non-existent in the realm of Holy Scripture.

 

[jacobaer]

Sola,

A) All beliefs and practices must come from Scripture Alone.

B) If a belief or practice is not commanded in Scripture but is not contradicted by Scripture and there is a good and necessary consequence for believing or practicing it, then it is OK to believe or practice.

Here’s the conundrum: B is a belief, and since A says that all beliefs (and practices) must come from Scripture, please quote passages that support B.

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[SolaScriptura]

Attacking a strawman? Really S.S., do you think I am really that devious?

The fact of the matter is that it is a legitamate question. I used to be a staunch Evangelical, and I was even an anti-Catholic. I debated with Catholics in the hope of rescuing them from the “yoke of Romanism”.

No it is not an legitimate question. You sound like the Jehovah Witness who say show me in Scripture where it says Jesus is one person with two natures. It doesn’t say that explicitly, but we arrive at the truth of that doctrine by logical consequence of what the Scripture says about Jesus. The same is true of sola Scriptura. If there is no other source in our possession that is on par with God speaking then by logical consequence the Scriptures sit in judge of everything else, because it is a higher authority. Didn’t Athanasius tell you the same thing

The simple fact of the matter is that Sola Scriptura (as defined by the Protestant Reformers) is non-existent in the realm of Holy Scripture.

This is nothing but a gratuitous assertion and we both equally make those all day. Sola Scriptura is in the realm of Holy Scripture and that settles it. See what I mean?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Now, the next question is, is Scripture sufficient for the faith. Well, 2 Tim. 3:15-16 tells us the following:
This verse teaches us that the Scriptures are sufficient to make one wise until salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. It is sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work, which is what it needs to be sufficient to do.

Sorry, I am at a loss at finding where this verse states that Scripture is “sufficient”.

With all do respect, you gonna have to try harder.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

This is nothing but a gratuitous assertion and we both equally make those all day. Sola Scriptura is in the realm of Holy Scripture and that settles it. See what I mean?

Good, then show me where the Bible says this.

BTW, I’ve debated w/ JWs too.

 

[dbacks5439]

Sola, the Bible says that we should hold fast to the traditions which have been brought to us either by letter or word of mouth. I hope you can agree with this. Bible says that faith and good works are needed for salvation, so traditionally we hold to that. Same with Marian Dogma. Bible doesn’t explicitly say we should honor her and pray to her, yet we logically come to that tradition by looking at not only at what Jesus and St. Paul say, but also with the Early Church Fathers.

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Here is a funny question to consider…

If you don’t celebrate the birth of Christ as Christmas, can you still believe in Christ?

Or if you don’t believe in Christmas, can you still be saved?

I’ll be happy to round the corner to a point on topic with an answer for Sola.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Good, then show me where the Bible says this.

I showed you above and you didn’t interact with it at all.

BTW, I’ve debated w/ JWs too.

Well, I hope you didn’t “debate” like you are doing now.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sorry, I am at a loss at finding where this verse states that Scripture is “sufficient”.

With all do respect, you gonna have to try harder.

No, I will not be trying harder. You need to take a logic course to learn what is and isn’t a valid argument and rebuttal.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Here is a funny question to consider…

If you don’t celebrate the birth of Christ as Christmas, can you still believe in Christ?

Or if you don’t believe in Christmas, can you still be saved?

I’ll be happy to round the corner to a point on topic with an answer for Sola.

I’m sorry, but I can’t figure out what you are trying ask me.