Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[Reformed1]

You were supposed to explain to eveyone why my argument was a straw man but you did not. It’s very easy to say I’ve built a straw man, and another to prove it.

If you look at say the Baptist Confession of 1689

***Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures

1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the 2light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.3 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto4 writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.***

You will see that there is nothing in here (or any of the confessions) that states that the Bible alone is all one can use to develop their faith.

Earlier you posted
*"I find the principle of Sola Scripture indefensible and impractical.

One of the strongest arguments against it is that those who propose it are those who most often trangress the principle themselves - that is they preach and teach their interpretation (or their churches interpretation) of the sciptures to others. If they truly believed Sola Scriptura, they would pass out copies of the Bible and let the Holy Spirit do the rest - but they don’t. They typically take an authoratative stance and tell others what the scriptures mean and are often miffed when they come to alternate conclusions."*

Preaching, handing out tracts, listening to tapes, reading what different scholars have to say about scripture, etc. in no way contradicts sola scriptura (see the first sentence from the London confession).

Later in the same post you stated
*"Well, they say. History shows us what is in Sacred Scripture and Bible scholars have studied scripture and historically what is in it.

The problem here is that this is an appeal to history as an athoratative source. Further it is an appeal to the authority of bible scholars - both of which fall outside Sola Scriptura. For in fact, nowhere in the bible is it stated which books should be there - there is no table of contents. These things, the books of the bible are determined from authoratative sources outside the bible - i.e. Christian Tradition."*

Again, appealing to history, the councils, the fathers, etc in no way contradicts a belief in sola scriptura. Bible scholars, historians, archaeologists, etc are not thought to be a sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of faith but that doesn’t mean that one can’t learn quite a bit from them.

 

[Reformed1]

I wrote this article(also on my signature) and till this day, not a single non-Catholic Christian Protestant has ever responded with a rebuttal that could win the assent of reasoned men.

My main motivation for writing it was because I was sick of all the apologetics papers that were too formal and didn’t get to the meat of the subject.

Let me know what you guys think. I hope it helps!

I think you read too much into 2Timothy 3:16-17. Paul’s intention is to discuss the nature of scripture, not the extent of scripture. Also, at this early point in salvation history, there was already the beginnings of a canon.

From post #41

---

Paul was not speaking of the extent of scripture but only the nature of scripture. Nowhere in this passage or any passages close by will you find Paul discussing the canon.

Also there was some knowledge, even at this early stage of what was to be the NT canon.

See 2 Peter 3:16 “…as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

With the wording of this passage there is no doubt that Peter considered Paul’s letters scripture since he uses the phrase “…as they do the OTHER scriptures.”

Additionally, Paul sees that the gospel of Luke is scripture. This is evident from 1 Timothy 5:18 "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

The “laborer deserves his wages” is a reference to Luke 10:7.

So, as you can see, the canon of the NT was beginning to form even from the beginning.

---

 

[mozart-250]

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

While you are at it, you might want to check out John Wesley and “prima scriptura”.

Wesley believed that the Bible was the only guaranteed infallible rule of faith; but at the same time he believed that the Bible was not self-interpreting.

Instead he believed the Bible must be interpreted through the lens of history, reason, and experience. In other words a valid Bible interpretation must be one the original audience of the Bible would have believed. In addition it must be logical and sensible. Furthermore, it must conform to what you know God has done in your life.

 

[mercygate]

Which reminds me, I am going to start a thread on how you guys know what is and what isn’t “infallible”. This came up during a discussion on the canon and I thought that Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were not ecumenical councils, but regional councils. Anyway, I don’t know how you guys distinguish between what is and what isn’t an infallible statement.

Carthage & Hippo were ratified by the Pope. Ecumenical Councils will ratify accepted teaching (like the canon) when the need arises. Until the Protestant Reformation rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books there was no need for an infallible pronouncement.

Most of the Ordinary Magisterium (i.e., basics of the faith, such as the resurrection) did not require a papal pronouncement for the Church to know that the teaching is infallible.

 

[Reformed1]

Carthage & Hippo were ratified by the Pope. Ecumenical Councils will ratify accepted teaching (like the canon) when the need arises. Until the Protestant Reformation rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books there was no need for an infallible pronouncement.

Most of the Ordinary Magisterium (i.e., basics of the faith, such as the resurrection) did not require a papal pronouncement for the Church to know that the teaching is infallible.

This is the part that is confusing to me.

Cardinal Cajetan rejected at least part of what you guys call the deuterocanonicals and he was one of your leading theologians at the time of the Reformation. Pope Gregory rejected at least one book of teh deuterocanonicals. I believe Cajetan was one of the cardinals that questioned Luther at the Diet of Worms.

I would think that neither of these men would have rejected something that was dogma. Anyway, I have started another thread on infallibility and how to recognize something that is declared as such.

 

[mercygate]

This is the part that is confusing to me.

Cardinal Cajetan rejected at least part of what you guys call the deuterocanonicals and he was one of your leading theologians at the time of the Reformation. Pope Gregory rejected at least one book of teh deuterocanonicals. I believe Cajetan was one of the cardinals that questioned Luther at the Diet of Worms.

I would think that neither of these men would have rejected something that was dogma. Anyway, I have started another thread on infallibility and how to recognize something that is declared as such.

Now you’re moving closer. Even Jerome questioned the Deuterocanonicals, but they had made it into the canon, so he backed off. It was after the Diet of Worms, at the Council of Trent, that the first ECUMENICAL Council put the gavel down on the canon.

And remember: those books are DEUTERO canon. Just as we accept certain canonical books as more important than others (e.g., the Gospel of John is more influential than the Epistle to Philemon), Catholics also view these books in light of their relative influence.

 

[mikeledes]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the deuetrocanonicals are accepted as canonical by the Orthodox Church and, like the Catholic Church, they can trace their history back to the Apostolic Age.

Secondly, Sola Scriptura has been the source of confusion in the Christian world. While some Protestants may argue that they can accept “tradition” as authoritative, but not as an infallible authority containing divine revelation, this tradition has no apostolic roots. It is the man made tradition of a particular Protestant school of thought (Calvinist, Lutheran, Baptist, Wesleyan, etc.). Each of these traditions are supposedly based on Scripture alone and are ultimately derived from the private interpretation of an individual (Martin Luther, John Calvin, Wesley, etc.), not from a Church with an apostolic “pedigree.” So Scripture alone means Scripture alone. Any Protestant attempts to reconcile Scripture alone with some notion of an authoritative tradition or the teaching authority of the Church does not change the fact that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith for Protestants and this has resulted in an ever increasing number of denominations and mass confusion.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[rr1213]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the deuetrocanonicals are accepted as canonical by the Orthodox Church and, like the Catholic Church, they can trace their history back to the Apostolic Age.

I believe that the Catholic and Orthodox cannons differ to some small degree.

 

[Redbandito]

I believe that the Catholic and Orthodox cannons differ to some small degree.

I’ve never heard this before. Do you have a source for this statement?

 

[Redbandito]

This is the part that is confusing to me.

Cardinal Cajetan rejected at least part of what you guys call the deuterocanonicals and he was one of your leading theologians at the time of the Reformation. Pope Gregory rejected at least one book of teh deuterocanonicals. I believe Cajetan was one of the cardinals that questioned Luther at the Diet of Worms.

I would think that neither of these men would have rejected something that was dogma. Anyway, I have started another thread on infallibility and how to recognize something that is declared as such.

Trent infallibly defined the canon. Prior to that, the canon was affirmed at several councils, but never declared infallibly until Trent.

 

[Redbandito]

If you look at say the Baptist Confession of 1689

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the 2light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.3 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto4 writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

You will see that there is nothing in here (or any of the confessions) that states that the Bible alone is all one can use to develop their faith.

Earlier you posted
"I find the principle of Sola Scripture indefensible and impractical.

One of the strongest arguments against it is that those who propose it are those who most often trangress the principle themselves - that is they preach and teach their interpretation (or their churches interpretation) of the sciptures to others. If they truly believed Sola Scriptura, they would pass out copies of the Bible and let the Holy Spirit do the rest - but they don’t. They typically take an authoratative stance and tell others what the scriptures mean and are often miffed when they come to alternate conclusions."

Preaching, handing out tracts, listening to tapes, reading what different scholars have to say about scripture, etc. in no way contradicts sola scriptura (see the first sentence from the London confession).

Later in the same post you stated
*"Well, they say. History shows us what is in Sacred Scripture and Bible scholars have studied scripture and historically what is in it. *

The problem here is that this is an appeal to history as an athoratative source. Further it is an appeal to the authority of bible scholars - both of which fall outside Sola Scriptura. For in fact, nowhere in the bible is it stated which books should be there - there is no table of contents. These things, the books of the bible are determined from authoratative sources outside the bible - i.e. Christian Tradition."

Again, appealing to history, the councils, the fathers, etc in no way contradicts a belief in sola scriptura. Bible scholars, historians, archaeologists, etc are not thought to be a sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of faith but that doesn’t mean that one can’t learn quite a bit from them.

This still misses the point, which is that ultimately the “doctrines necessary for our salvation” comes down to each individual’s personal study of the Bible and whatever other historical sources used. Whereas, the Catholic understanding preserves the unity of Scripture as it was originally intended for anyone who remains faithful to the teachings of the Church.

I appreciate that Baptists and others are starting to give more credibility to Church Fathers. HOWEVER, the trend tends to be that where the Church Fathers agree with them on their doctrine, they accept them, and where they disagree with them, they reject them. Therefore, Baptists are still only truly appealing to the Fathers to confirm what they already believe rather than to seek what has historically been accepted as Apostolic, orthodox Christianity. That method of researching “history” is backward. It is an appeal to history to prove my agenda.

I actually read a book by a graduate from DTS recently where this was shown to be the case. He reported that he was really excited to read the Church Fathers in seminary. But when he finally read them he was disappointed to find that they had “relatively little insight into the Scriptures.” In other words, he realized just how Catholic they were and therefore rejected their words as unScriptural and lacking in insight. How sad indeed!

 

[Redbandito]

While you are at it, you might want to check out John Wesley and “prima scriptura”.

Wesley believed that the Bible was the only guaranteed infallible rule of faith; but at the same time he believed that the Bible was not self-interpreting.

Instead he believed the Bible must be interpreted through the lens of history, reason, and experience. In other words a valid Bible interpretation must be one the original audience of the Bible would have believed. In addition it must be logical and sensible. Furthermore, it must conform to what you know God has done in your life.

Well that’s nice and all, but it is still completely subjective and relative to the person and their situation. Each person’s experience and ability to reason is different. Furthermore, as we have seen this play out, the fruit has not been that of unity of truth, but rather division. SO, either the H.S. is guiding well intentioned Christians into separate and sometimes mutually exclusive understandings of the Scripture, OR you believe that everyone that disagrees with your understanding of Scripture lacks the true desire and openness to truth that you do (including other Protestants from other denominations). Which is it?

 

[rr1213]

I’ve never heard this before. Do you have a source for this statement?

I’ve seen references in a couple of places of the minor differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Canon. Here’s a few examples:

"ORTHODOX HAVE MORE CHAPTERS

Some Orthodox Christian Bibles also include several more additional texts deemed apocryphal by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, including Greek Ezra (or 1 Esdras), Apocalypse of Ezra (or 2 Esdras), 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh."

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060416/ai_n16165803

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

 

[Birdhead]

The best defense for Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for re-proof, for training in righteousness so the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”.

Hebrew 4:12 “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”.

Don’t need the Church magistrate to interpret those Words!

 

[Birdhead]

Here’s one for you! Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”.

 

[HailMary]

The best defense for Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for re-proof, for training in righteousness so the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”.

Hebrew 4:12 “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”.

Don’t need the Church magistrate to interpret those Words!

How about these?

2 Peter 3:15-17

 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. **In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures**.
Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

 

[mozart-250]

Well that’s nice and all, but it is still completely subjective and relative to the person and their situation.

My issue here is the phrase “completely subjective”.

For example: where is the subjectivity in reading the commandment “Thou shall not steal” and concluding it would be against Scripture to rob the local bank. I would estimate the level of subjectivity in interpreting Scripture is somewhere between 5 and 15 on a scale 1-100 (the rest being a matter of basic reading comprehension), but I am not sure what metrics one would use to objectively determine the subjectivity level of the Bible.

Furthermore, as we have seen this play out, the fruit has not been that of unity of truth, but rather division.

You must show cause and effect here, which you have not done. You can not show that the cause for the 8,934,219 denominations within the category “Protestant” is the doctrine that the only guaranteed infallible faith source is the Bible. I personally think you are ascribing too much to us to believe that is the case (but that is a separate issue).

Actually the argument that Protestantism by nature is more divisive than Catholicism has a logical fallacy, but it would take explaining set theory to illustrate it (and is also a separate issue). It does concern having a “super category” of “Protestant” for anything that is not Catholic or Orthodox.

SO, either the H.S. is guiding well intentioned Christians into separate and sometimes mutually exclusive understandings of the Scripture, OR you believe that everyone that disagrees with your understanding of Scripture lacks the true desire and openness to truth that you do (including other Protestants from other denominations). Which is it?

There are other choices here you know (is the name of this fallacy false choice?).

First of all concerning the promise in Scripture of the Holy Spirit guiding Christians into all truth, you must be very careful about reading into it what is not there. No where does Scripture indicate this is an immediate, complete, or error free process.

As far as the second part of your “OR” statement, that assumes I believe myself incapable of error, which I assure you is not the case.

 

[Redbandito]

My issue here is the phrase “completely subjective”.

For example: where is the subjectivity in reading the commandment “Thou shall not steal” and concluding it would be against Scripture to rob the local bank. I would estimate the level of subjectivity in interpreting Scripture is somewhere between 5 and 15 on a scale 1-100 (the rest being a matter of basic reading comprehension), but I am not sure what metrics one would use to objectively determine the subjectivity level of the Bible.

I simply disagree. Quite clearly there is a huge subjective component to exegeting Scripture for there have been NUMEROUS heresies all appealing to Scripture as their source. There are certainly verses that seem straight forward. Yet, when we go deeper, even these can lead to other questions. For instance, “Thou shall not kill.” Does this mean the death penalty is wrong? Does this mean that we are not allowed to defend ourselves against an attacker? When going deeper we learn that the Hebrew actually is saying “Thou shall not murder.” However, the point is that even the things that appear straight forward can lead to other questions that can produce disunity.

In fact, Catholics, Orthodox, and the myriad of competing Protestant denominations all make “Scriptural” arguments. Yet clearly not all of them can be true since many are contradictory. For instance, justification cannot be by faith ALONE AND by faith working through love. Yet, both Catholics and Protestants appeal to numerous verses in order to prove their points are truly what the Bible intends us to understand. With sola scriptura, the ultimate decider of which “Biblical” argument is more convincing is the individual. For Catholics, we know that that the orthodox understanding of the Word of God is passed on through the Church.

I have heard of some of the most ridiculous splits in churches. There are Church of Christ’s that are splitting due to instrumental music or having kitchens in their church. One says that the Bible does not explicitly teach this, the other says it doesn’t matter. Some Protestants reject the necessity of baptism based on “Scripture,” some affirm it for the same reason. In other words, each person’s subjective interpretation of the Scripture is what tells them what is really “Biblical.”

You must show cause and effect here, which you have not done. You can not show that the cause for the 8,934,219 denominations within the category “Protestant” is the doctrine that the only guaranteed infallible faith source is the Bible. I personally think you are ascribing too much to us to believe that is the case (but that is a separate issue).

Actually the argument that Protestantism by nature is more divisive than Catholicism has a logical fallacy, but it would take explaining set theory to illustrate it (and is also a separate issue). It does concern having a “super category” of “Protestant” for anything that is not Catholic or Orthodox…

I have not shown cause and effect, because that was not my intent in my original post. I simply wanted to answer with an objection of my own. I can certainly go deeper if you would like, but I was just entering the conversation. Remember, this is not a court of law. This is a message board where we can dialogue. I raise a point. You raise a point or respond with a question, and we go from there. I don’t think an absolute proof was required of me on my first response, do you?

And as far as proving anything, I want to know what you consider “proof.” Are we talking about the preponderance of evidence or beyond the shadow of doubt? I cannot prove anything except possibly a couple of math formulas. However, I think observation should be able to help us to ascertain with a relative degree of certainty that my claim was true. Within Luther’s lifetime, there were already 5 divisions within Protestantism. In other words, once self-interpretation became an acceptable doctrine (via sola scriptura) division occurred with no hope of resolve. Why? Because every single one of them ex-communicated each other based on their own subjective interpretation of Scripture. Luther called Calvin a heretic and vice versa. Whereas historically, when a heresy was prevalent (ironically typically through self-interpretation), the Church denounced it and the heresy went off and died, now no Protestant denomination has any means by which they can work out their differences because they all appeal to the same source. If history and common sense is not enough proof, then I really don’t know what you’re looking for.

 

[Redbandito]

There are other choices here you know (is the name of this fallacy false choice?).

First of all concerning the promise in Scripture of the Holy Spirit guiding Christians into all truth, you must be very careful about reading into it what is not there. No where does Scripture indicate this is an immediate, complete, or error free process.

As far as the second part of your “OR” statement, that assumes I believe myself incapable of error, which I assure you is not the case.

I agree that our understanding of the truth grows over time (i.e. the development of doctrine). However, what CANNOT happen is that the “pillar and foundation of truth” (aka the Church) be in error about doctrine. In order to say this, one would have to say that the immediate successors of the Apostles had to begin to teach error. Considering we have many of their writings, and many of them cite various Biblical passages in support of their understandings, I just find that hard to believe. There is no question that their understanding grew, but I have trouble with the premise that they were in error from the getgo, and that they were just waiting for God to reveal anew the fullness of truth. Furthermore, since all revelation has already been deposited, and therefore we have it in completion, by what means do you propose that the Holy Spirit was going to guide us into “all truth.” Jesus said He would be with us always. Why would He take such great pains to inspire man to write infallible Scripture only to turn it over to man knowing that he could never understand it infallibly? I simply don’t think that makes any sense. Therefore, I reject this first premise as a real choice.

As for the final paragraph, that is incorrect. It doesn’t assume anything. I gave you the choice. If you do not claim to be infallible, then you rejected that choice (thankfully). But that then leaves us alone with the first choice again, which was that the Holy Spirit must simply be guiding all Christians in different directions. Maybe you’re okay with this idea. I, frankly, am not. Christ prayed for unity. Christ gave us the means for unity in the Holy Spirit. Anything other than unity, therefore, cannot be of God. So, since the Church (with the exception of the Orthodox schism) has basically had unity for 1500 years prior to the Reformation where self-interpretation was the rally cry, and the direct result was disunity, I think the cause-effect relationship speaks for itself. God bless you and I look forward to your response.

 

[rcwhiteh]

But it says it’s inspired by God and useful for teaching and training righteous. What more do we need?

Scripture is inspired, true, and is useful (some translations say “profitable”), but there’s an enormous difference between useful and sufficient.

As an analogy, suppose I’m coaching football. My players are sweating through two-a-day practices, and getting worn out and woozy from dehydration. I can give them water, and that’s useful because it replaces the water they’ve lost.

Water, however, is not sufficient because they also need electrolytes and sugars. If I give them water with Gatorade powder dissolved into it, that becomes all they need to keep going safely; it is therefore sufficient to their needs.

When one argues about Sacred Tradition as being somehow inferior to Sacred Scripture, one has to remember that St. Thomas established the Church of Alexandria on the strength of Sacred Tradition and it prospered without error until it was finally united with Rome over 300 years later.

There is no defense of Sola Scriptura because it is indefensible. Dr. Scott Hahn mentioned in his conversion story that he asked one of his professors in college where the incontrovertible Biblical proof of Sola Scriptura existed; his professor had to admit that it wasn’t in the Bible - it was simply an assumption from which Protestant theologians had proceeded for centuries.