Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[Blue_Serenity]

No matter how many times Protestants attempt to reconcile Sola Scriptura with some notion of tradition or teaching authority, it still boils down to one point, namely, the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith. Every Protestant “tradition” or school of interpretation originated from an individual’s interpretation of the Bible (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.). These private interpretations replaced Tradition in most Protestant denominations as the standard used to interpret the Bible.

Can I ask you a few questions out of true sincerity?
Why do you accept the CC’s translation of the Bible?
Do you read the Bible alot on your own?
I ask these questions to try and gain some insight on why you’re so adamant about the CC’s translation and not looking at it for yourself in conjunction with the CC’s teachings?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

You have said that it is spelled out “black and white” several times in this thread without addressing a single rebuttle. This verse does NOT support sola scriptura.
“Black and white” indeed.

Why do you think it doesn’t?

 

[mikeledes]

**Why is it so difficult for you to show where the Bible ALONE says that it ALONE is:

"…given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience. (I. “The Scriptures.”) American Baptist statement of faith, 1858-9

Surely if the Bible is what this Baptist statement claims it is, then shouldn’t the Bible say that itself??? **

Uh…er…cough…

may I direct your attention to 2 Timothy 3:13-17? It’s a wonderful passage but make notice of verses 16 and 17 particularly. There’s no doubt…Sola Scriptura. God bless.

The interesting thing about that passage is that it uses the word “profitable” or “useful.” It does not say “sufficient”, “exclusive source”, “only infallible rule of faith.”

A computer, hoosierdaddy, is “profitable” for typing a research paper. It is not sufficient, however, for creating a completed research paper. For that, you need primary and secondary sources and a person to put it together into a coherent argument and type it up.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[E.E.N.S]

Why do you think it doesn’t?

Because it doesn’t say it does. And the rest of Scriptures says otherwise. Simple.

and from earlier…

*"How does this fit into the context of the rest of the Scriptures that make it “black and white” that a person must be careful not to lose their salvation? Here are about 100 verses that say otherwise.

Also, I think it would be highly beneficial for you to read this article addressing this exact topic.

---

Okay, now let’s get back on topic, shall we?"*

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It says here to hold fast to the things that he has learned because knowing who it came from.

I’m in a hurry; will just address this part right now.

What are the things that he has learned? Scripture. Whether written down OT or not yet written down NT, it is still Scripture.

I believe I have made a case for SS but even if I haven’t, I don’t believe you’ve disproven it either.

 

[E.E.N.S]

1. Can I ask you a few questions out of true sincerity?
2. Why do you accept the CC’s translation of the Bible?
3. Do you read the Bible alot on your own?
4. I ask these questions to try and gain some insight on why you’re so adamant about the CC’s translation and not looking at it for yourself in conjunction with the CC’s teachings?

1. Yes you may.
2. Because the CC is the one who determined the Canon of Scripture. Because the CC was the ONLY Church at that time (aside from the EO, but they were one with us at that point in history). And Because the CC is the Church instituted by Christ himself and passed on through apostolic succession in an unbroken line over the last 2000 years.
3. Daily.
4. You misunderstand, as we do read it for ourselves (in conjunction the the CC’s teachings.)

 

[hoosierdaddy]

MIke>>The interesting thing about that passage is that it uses the word “profitable” or “useful.” It does not say “sufficient”, “exclusive source”, “only infallible rule of faith.”

A computer, hoosierdaddy, is “profitable” for typing a research paper. It is not sufficient, however, for creating a completed research paper. For that, you need primary and secondary sources and a person to put it together into a coherent argument and type it up.

**My mistake, my NKJV says “profitable” as well. But what does the following verse say in regards to Scripture? This:

“That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”. These words suggest pretty strongly that Sola Scriptura is indeed solely Scriptural as opposed to a man made Tradition.

I understand your analogy but I don’t think we can equate that to Scripture. It’s a bit higher than and of more eternal importance than a computer right? I wish I could make an analogy in return but I suck at that.**

 

[hoosierdaddy]

No matter how many times Protestants attempt to reconcile Sola Scriptura with some notion of tradition or teaching authority, it still boils down to one point, namely, the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith. Every Protestant “tradition” or school of interpretation originated from an individual’s interpretation of the Bible (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.). These private interpretations replaced Tradition in most Protestant denominations as the standard used to interpret the Bible.

Since these private interpretations/traditions originate from man and not from God, they are still subject to the scrutiny of the individual. So, in fact, the individual remains the final arbiter in determining what is true, hence the proliferation of Protestant denominations.

Take the Baptists, for example. You have Free-Will Baptists, Predestinarian Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, and a whole host of other Baptist sects. No matter which way Protestants put it, it still boils down to the individual and his/her Bible.

God Bless,
Michael

I posted what I believe a defense against your argument above on my thread.

So I could say no matter which way Catholics put it it’s still man made Traditions over the God inspired Scriptures? That’s what it comes down to. God’s Word is truth and if you put anything else with it, you are saying that God’s Word is not enough. How do you explain liberal vs. conservative Catholics? How do you explain away the need that there was FOR the Reformation? And how do you explain the basis for calling yourselves Catholics when the Bible calls us believers, saints, priests, and especially Christians?

 

[E.E.N.S]

What are the things that he has learned? Scripture. Whether written down OT or not yet written down NT, it is still Scripture.

What about John 20:30? (Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.)
Where did that get written down?

 

[mikeledes]

Can I ask you a few questions out of true sincerity?
Why do you accept the CC’s translation of the Bible?
Do you read the Bible alot on your own?
I ask these questions to try and gain some insight on why you’re so adamant about the CC’s translation and not looking at it for yourself in conjunction with the CC’s teachings?

Because the Catholic Church is the only one that can claim an apostolic heritage and, at least, institutional continuity with the church of the Bible. This is historical fact. Protestantism, on the other hand, is merely 500 years old and has splintered into a variety of sects from the very moment of its foundation. Luther vehemently disagreed with Zwingli and Zwingli with Luther and both used very strong language to express this. Luther disagreed with Calvin and vice versa.

Because Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. Since the Catholic Church is the only one that can claim historical continuity with the church Jesus founded, it is obviously the only church to which this promise would apply. Consequently, I trust the promise of Christ and know that His Church would not fall en masse into heresy.

Because it is the only one that resembles the teachings found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, who believed in baptismal regeneration and did not adhere to Sola Scriptura.

Because the Catholic Church is the one that discerned which books belonged in the Bible and which ones didn’t.

Because the Catholic Church best reflects the teachings of John 3, John 6, Matthew 16:18, John 20:23, James 2:24, Romans 2:6-7, etc.

God Bless,
michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

It is not a strawman, it is a legitamate argument. And the fact that you cannot show me from the Bible **where it says that it is totally sufficient **speaks volumes concerning the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

It is a strawman and being that you cannot recognize that says a lot more about you than the argument for sola Scriptura. You may not agree with the arguments, but to keep harping on a strawman is ridiculous. You have to deal with what sola Scriptura means, not with what you want it to mean. The Scripture do not have to explicitly say they are “totally sufficient” for them to be sufficient and for one to arrive at the truth through logical arguments. Even some of the fathers called the Scriptures sufficient:

The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable.(NPNF2: Vol. IV, Against the Heathen, Part I, §1. See also Robert W. Thomson, trans., Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 3.)

And Chrysostom …

• Great is the profit of the divine Scriptures, and all-sufficient is the aid which comes from them.* And Paul declared this when he said, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written aforetime for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, and 1 Corinthians 10:11) For the divine oracles are a treasury of all manner of medicines, so that whether it be needful to quench pride, to lull desire to sleep, to tread under foot the love of money, to despise pain, to inspire confidence, to gain patience, from them one may find abundant resource. For what man of those who struggle with long poverty or who are nailed to a grievous disease, will not, when he reads the passage before us, receive much comfort? NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Homily 37.1.

Or Cyril of Alexandria:

Sufficient, sufficient for this * are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers*, * which if any one would diligently study and vigilantly attend to, he would immediately have his mind filled with divine light. For, they did not speak of themselves, but ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.’ Goode, Vol. 3, pp. 281-282.
*
You will also not that Cyril is making in reference to 2 Timothy as we have been doing for support of his argument.

There are more, but this alone should demonstrate you reason more like a Jehovah Witness who demands explicit words for the Trinity then reasoned arguments from the Scriptures.

 

[mikeledes]

I posted what I believe a defense against your argument above on my thread.

So I could say no matter which way Catholics put it it’s still man made Traditions over the God inspired Scriptures? That’s what it comes down to. God’s Word is truth and if you put anything else with it, you are saying that God’s Word is not enough. How do you explain liberal vs. conservative Catholics? How do you explain away the need that there was FOR the Reformation? And how do you explain the basis for calling yourselves Catholics when the Bible calls us believers, saints, priests, and especially Christians?

You are creating a false dichotomy between Tradition and Scripture. We believe the Word of God comes in two forms, Scripture and Tradition. From the tradition we find teachings that Protestants take for granted, such as the immorality of masturbation and the proper notion of marriage.

There is a Tradition that comes from God and there are man-made traditions. Likewise, there are Scriptures that come from God (Bible) and there are man-made scriptures (The Book of Mormon). Just because it is Tradition, hoosierdaddy, does not automatically make man-made.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[E.E.N.S]

I posted what I believe a defense against your argument above on my thread.

So I could say no matter which way Catholics put it it’s still man made Traditions over the God inspired Scriptures? Wrong. Sacred Scripture is God’s Written Word, and Sacred Tradition is God’s Living Word - the traditions of men that nullify the Word of God are entirely different. That’s what it comes down to. Your misunderstanding of it. God’s Word is truth and if you put anything else with it, you are saying that God’s Word is not enough. Sacred Tradition is also God’s Word. How do you explain liberal vs. conservative Catholics? Because there are sinners even within the Church who either don’t care to understand or worse they have their own agenda. How do you explain away the need that there was FOR the Reformation? The Church will always be in need for reform, until the Lord comes again. However, the “Reformation” was more accurately a deformation, a rupture in the Body of Christ. Reform is not schism. And how do you explain the basis for calling yourselves Catholics when the Bible calls us believers, saints, priests, and especially Christians? Catholic means “universal”, and that is what the Church is, universal. Why do you call yourself Baptist? or Lutheran, or Methodist, etc.? The term “catholic” is in the Apostles’ Creed as well, and it went from being an adjective to being its proper name (while still remaining an adjective.) Catholics are Christians and can call themselves either, saying one is Catholic is simply being more specific.

 

[mikeledes]

It is a strawman and being that you cannot recognize that says a lot more about you than the argument for sola Scriptura. You may not agree with the arguments, but to keep harping on a strawman is ridiculous. You have to deal with what sola Scriptura means, not with what you want it to mean. The Scripture do not have to explicitly say they are “totally sufficient” for them to be sufficient and for one to arrive at the truth through logical arguments. Even some of the fathers called the Scriptures sufficient:

And Chrysostom …

Or Cyril of Alexandria:

You will also not that Cyril is making in reference to 2 Timothy as we have been doing for support of his argument.

There are more, but this alone should demonstrate you reason more like a Jehovah Witness who demands explicit words for the Trinity then reasoned arguments from the Scriptures.

Interesting, because these same Fathers talk about the necessity of Apostiolic Tradition. St John Chrysostom, for example, wrote:

**". . . there was much also that was not written. Like that which is written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief." **

Gosd Bless,
Michael

 

[E.E.N.S]

And Chrysostom …

“So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians circa A.D. 400]).

 

[E.E.N.S]

Interesting, because these same Fathers talk about the necessity of Apostiolic Tradition. St John Chrysostom, for example, wrote:

**". . . there was much also that was not written. Like that which is written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief." **

Gosd Bless,
Michael

LOL, nice timing! But you forgot the ever so powerful last sentence, “It is a tradition, seek no farther.”

 

[mikeledes]

And how do you explain the basis for calling yourselves Catholics when the Bible calls us believers, saints, priests, and especially Christians?

The same basis you use to call yourself Baptist.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

“So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians circa A.D. 400]).

To all Catholics. If any of you can document what Oral Teaching the Apostle handed on to the Thessalonians, I will abandon sola Scriptura as a principle. Should be easy since you all keep referencing this verse. Of all the Catholics on this board I know there is one who will take up the challenge with some strong evidence.

 

[mikeledes]

To all Catholics. If any of you can document what Oral Teaching the Apostle handed on to the Thessalonians, I will abandon sola Scriptura as a principle. Should be easy since you all keep referencing this verse. Of all the Catholics on this board I know there is one who will take up the challenge with some strong evidence.

The belief that a valid marriage occurs at the exchange of vows.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

The belief that a valid marriage occurs at the exchange of vows.

God Bless,
Michael

Ummm … Michael … hate to disappoint you, but this is just an assertion, not evidence or proof. Want to explain what evidence you have that this what the Apostle Paul taught the Thessalonians?