Protestant defense of sola scriptura

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

Secondly, without a unique authority to determine and clearly teach and interpret sacred scripture man is free to make of it what he wants and he is typically biased due to his fallen nature. It is all to easy to add something where it is not or to remove something that should be there - and who is to say that this new interpretation is incorrect if he is to believe that it is scirpture alone that is the authority?

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.

It is impossible to relegate Christian Tradition to the dustbin in favor of Sola Scriptura, because without it, there would not be a single “accepted” printed copy of God’s Word.
 
TriLogic said:
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.

Secondly, without a unique authority to determine and clearly teach and interpret sacred scripture man is free to make of it what he wants and he is typically biased due to his fallen nature. It is all to easy to add something where it is not or to remove something that should be there - and who is to say that this new interpretation is incorrect if he is to believe that it is scirpture alone that is the authority?

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.
Click to expand...
Before you speak of sola scriptura you should do some research so at least you know what it is. What you have done above, maybe unintentionally, is create a straw man.

Try studying the Westminster Confession or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.
 
If we take the time to apply common sense to the historical reality of the bible, there is no defense for Sola Scriptura.

First, The bible is not extant, the copies of the bible scripture we have today are copies of copies of copies. So as a single rule of faith, the foundation is very shaky.

Second, The bible is not self authenticating. An outside source, the Catholic Church, determined what would and would not be in the bible. Ask a Protestant if his bible contains the Gospel according to Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Acts of John. The bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the Catholic Church determined the bible’s table of contents.

Third, not only does the bible not make any statements supporting sola scriptura, it specifically warns against it. See 2 Peter 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20.

So why do Protestants try so hard to try to prove sola scriptura? It’s because they have nothing else. They have no Tradition, no Apostolic Authority, and no central ecclisiastic instruction. And Most Importantly, no full history; they showed up to the party 1500 years too late–all the theological issues had been long established by the time they came on the scene.

Sola scriptura is a very thin facade that can be easily seen through if we take the time to look.
 
Brett_Barnes said:
Most Importantly, [Protestants have] no full history; they showed up to the party 1500 years too late–all the theological issues had been long established by the time they came on the scene.
Click to expand...
Several of the larger Protestant objections to Catholic dogma were not dogmatically defined until centuries after the Reformation, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
 
rr1213 said:
Several of the larger Protestant objections to Catholic dogma were not dogmatically defined until centuries after the Reformation, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Click to expand...
That’s true, but they were believed from early, early times.
 
mercygate said:
That’s true, but they were believed from early, early times.
Click to expand...
To some extent and in some form, yes. Still, there would not have been any need to dogmatically define the concepts if they were ever so clear and established.
 
rr1213 said:
To some extent and in some form, yes. Still, there would not have been any need to dogmatically define the concepts if they were ever so clear and established.
Click to expand...
You have a point. But having Protestants making claims against the Church likely played a part in these beliefs being dogmatically defined.

I read somewhere that eucharistic adoration by Catholics was brought about as a reaction to ridicule of the eucharist by Protestants. Can someone confirm this?
 
rr1213 said:
Several of the larger Protestant objections to Catholic dogma were not dogmatically defined until centuries after the Reformation, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Click to expand...
It was always understood, but, you are correct, not always defined through documentation.

A lot of that doctrine had to be clarified because of the misguidance of the protestant revolt. It was always understood and practiced, but had to be clarified and officially recognized so the misconceived theology of the Protestants could be refuted through documentation.

But does something not exist unitl it is defined through a written document? No, it exists.

So, by their very definition, Protestants have to offer something different than what the Catholic Church offers. So if the Catholic Church is right in certain doctrine, does that make Protestants wrong if they take the opposite stance, like, for instance, the doctrine Sola Scriptura?
 
Brett_Barnes said:
So if the Catholic Church is right in certain doctrine, does that make Protestants wrong if they take the opposite stance, like, for instance, the doctrine Sola Scriptura?
Click to expand...
Well, certainly if the Catholic and Protestant views are opposed on a certain subject, then it’s likely that one of the two are in error.
 
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...
Course the scripture St. Paul is refering to here is the Old testament, and doesn’t include the new testament.😉

The other obvious thing, is that this doesn’t say SUFFICIENT.
 
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...
I’ve read Sproul’s book on sola scriptura, and came away less than impressed. I think the argument presented here is especially weak. If this were the case, how is it that we have come to such a conclusion? Where is it stated in the Scripture that the Church only had authority until the Bible was formally canonized? This argument merely begs the question and shows that Sproul is reaching just like everyone else.

Sproul’s argument about a fallible list of infallible books is also ridiculous. Since infallible, by it’s very nature, means “not capable of error”, and fallible means “capable of error,” one cannot claim to have such a canon. The term is self-contradictory and impossible. For if a canon is fallible, there is no way to know beyond doubt whether any of the books in this canon are infallible. And since infallible means not capable of error, this cannot be. The best that one could claim on this is a fallible canon of inerrant books. But Sproul would not find this to be acceptable.
 
Blue_Serenity said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...
Because he is telling Timothy this while writing a letter that would eventually become part of the NT Scripture. Since the NT canon had not even been contemplated at this point, the only Scripture Paul could have been talking about was the OT.
 
rr1213 said:
To some extent and in some form, yes. Still, there would not have been any need to dogmatically define the concepts if they were ever so clear and established.
Click to expand...
The same line of argument can be used by Jehovah’s Witnesses against the Trinity. So, were we to use your logic, we could not accept any definition that came post-Apostles. The reality is that development of doctrine is acceptable. As long as the development comes from a deeper understanding of what has already been revealed and NOT from addition to this revelation. In other words, clarifying ideas that have been understood in lesser ways (i.e. Trinity, Marian Doctrine, etc.) is fine. It is not acceptable to bring something completely new and foreign to the table. Without this understanding Christianity cannot defend itself against the likes of the JW’s, Mormons, Jesus Seminar followers, etc.
 
Redbandito said:
Because he is telling Timothy this while writing a letter that would eventually become part of the NT Scripture. Since the NT canon had not even been contemplated at this point, the only Scripture Paul could have been talking about was the OT.
Click to expand...
I see. Thanks for answering my question. 😉
 
Nebuchadnezzar said:
Course the scripture St. Paul is refering to here is the Old testament, and doesn’t include the new testament.😉

The other obvious thing, is that this doesn’t say SUFFICIENT.
Click to expand...
But it says it’s inspired by God and useful for teaching and training righteous. What more do we need? 😃
How do you know it doesn’t include the New Testament?
 
Nebuchadnezzar said:
Cause that was the only canon available at the time of St. Paul’s letter…What other sripture would he be refering his young Bishop Timothy too?
Click to expand...
I apologize, as I am not well-versed with religious history. I’m learning, though. It’s one of the reason I am here. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top