Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[Reformed1]

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?

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.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

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

St. Paul tells us to hold to the Traditions that the Apolstles taught, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter. So Sacred Scripture itself tells us we need more then the written word of God. The Church teaches that the Bible is sufficient to teach what one needs for salvation,but as St. John says in John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” You have to understand that your Christian faith is rich and deep indeed!!!

 

[Redbandito]

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?

Just because I have all the necessary equiptment to ride be able to ride a bike well, does not guarantee that I know how to ride a bike. In the same way, the Scripture materially has what we need to be trained in righteousness, yet that does not mean I understand it. In fact, Peter warns us, **“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” **So rather than leaving us to figure out the Scriptures for ourselves, Christ established a Church to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). And in doing so, He instructed that the Church guard the Traditions He taught the Apostles, “whether by word of MOUTH or by LETTER.” Therefore, plays a huge part in transmitting the teachings of Christ. Ultimately, the Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Tradition and authority of the Church. When we separate them, we lose so much of the treasure Christ left for us. And while you can still know Christ without some of these treasures, you can never know him as fully as if you possessed all the treasures He meant for us to share through the Church.

 

[Redbandito]

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.

I have no problem with this. The point is that this cannot be used as a prooftext for sola scriptura. This is simply because Paul cannot be telling them that everything they need to be trained in righteousness is in the Scripture when multiple books or letters had not even been written. It simply proves too much for the Protestant. Not to mention, that in no way does this verse teach formal sufficiency, which is needed to accept sola scriptura as a true teaching. Remember his response was a response to the use of 2 Tim 3 as a prooftext for sola scriptura. Nothing more.

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.”

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

I also have no problem with this. Of course they were beginning to form the canon. Without the Apostolic acknowledgement of what was inspired Scripture, the Tradition could not have been passed on to the Church of the late fourth century to make this determination. This does not take away the problem for the Protestant, however, because these verses are completely unspecific as to which letters of Paul were inspired and to what other books not written by Paul were inspired. Therefore the lack of an inspired table of contents remains the key issue for the Protestant.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

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.

That is a damn good point. The first quote is from Deuteronomy, the second is certainly from Luke, not only that it is a direct quote from Christ. However, this still does not make St. Paul say in 1 Timothy that scripture is all you need. Also there were at least two maybe three books written after 1 Timothy. 2 Timothy, Titus and Revelation that Paul would certainly not be aware of yet.

 

[Reformed1]

That is a damn good point. The first quote is from Deuteronomy, the second is certainly from Luke, not only that it is a direct quote from Christ. However, this still does not make St. Paul say in 1 Timothy that scripture is all you need. Also there were at least two maybe three books written after 1 Timothy. 2 Timothy, Titus and Revelation that Paul would certainly not be aware of yet.

I am going to stop here for the night. You say “damn good point” and I get two “I have no problem with this” from redbandito…why ruin a good thing?

 

[TriLogic]

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.

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.

 

[lak611]

Try studying the Westminster Confession or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Are these available on-line?

 

[HailMary]

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!

 

[Reformed1]

Are these available on-line?

Yes, they are available online. You can either google them or if you can wait a little while I will give you some links later.

 

[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!

Well for one, your definition of sola scriptura seems lacking.
Where did you get it from?

 

[mercygate]

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.

You are right, of course – and that is exactly what Sproul claims.

But I give him points for acknowledging that the canon of the New Testament was compiled by the Church. A lot of self-conceived “Bible Christians” think it dropped out of Heaven, leather bound on India paper, with gold edges, red-letter edition, KJV.

He gives a good history of the formation of the canon. But it really does blow apart on that fallible list business. He even acknowledges that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible list of infallible books. A lot of 'em won’t even go that far to acknowledge the Catholic view of Scripture.

 

[HailMary]

Well for one, your definition of sola scriptura seems lacking.
Where did you get it from?

An adaptation from Joel Peters Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

 

[runandsew]

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.

The Church defines its dogmas at different times because there is a need to do it at that time, some times it is because of a heresy, other times it is because the Church feels the laity needs to hear it.
In the case of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, they were defined when they were due to the liberalization of the Christian world at that time. There were a lot of theologians (both Catholic and Protestant) who were questioning the inerrancy of the bible and such. They were questioning the virginity of Mary and other related items. The Church counteracted that by becoming ultra conservative and defining these dogmas.
I have recently listened to a tape by the late Archmandrate Father Stephen Barham, and he explained the issue a lot more in-depth, I would have to check it out again to get the fine points, but this kind of summarizes what he said.

It would be the same as why the Church had to define the dogma of the Trinity. Why do it if it was so clear and established? The Trinity was defined because of Heresy
The Catholic has always taught its dogmas, it’s understanding of what it means might evolve over time, but the core ideas has always been there.
If you were to ask Peter about the Trinity, he wouldn’t have known what you were talking about, but if you would have explained it to him and showed him the scripture supporting it, he would have said yes this is what we believe.

 

[Reformed1]

An adaptation from Joel Peters Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

I think the definition given in your paper is to general…it says to much.

Most Protestant churches are going to be confessional. I believe if I were to write a paper debunking sola scriptura I would use one of the historic confessions for my base definition of what SS is and what it isn’t.

For example, the 1689 Baptist Confession says:

1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light 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 necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and diverse manners to reveal Himself, and to declare that revelation to be 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 only wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be the most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

You will see in the first sentence that scripture is believed to be the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of faith. For example, the early councils are of great importance but I don’t believe that they are infallible. The ECF’s are certainly important too, but neither one of us believe that they were infallible. Tradition is also viewed the same way, important but not sufficient, certain and infallible.

I haven’t made it all the way through your paper but unless you were very careful you will end up defeating a straw man.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

You will see in the first sentence that scripture is believed to be the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of faith. For example, the early councils are of great importance but I don’t believe that they are infallible. The ECF’s are certainly important too, but neither one of us believe that they were infallible. Tradition is also viewed the same way, important but not sufficient, certain and infallible.

I haven’t made it all the way through your paper but unless you were very careful you will end up defeating a straw man.

You mean you don’t believe the early councils are infallible, EXCEPT for Hippo and Carthage where the canon of the NT was determined…infallibly.

 

[Redbandito]

You are right, of course – and that is exactly what Sproul claims.

But I give him points for acknowledging that the canon of the New Testament was compiled by the Church. A lot of self-conceived “Bible Christians” think it dropped out of Heaven, leather bound on India paper, with gold edges, red-letter edition, KJV.

He gives a good history of the formation of the canon. But it really does blow apart on that fallible list business. He even acknowledges that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible list of infallible books. A lot of 'em won’t even go that far to acknowledge the Catholic view of Scripture.

True. That is a good point. Sproul is a lot more honest about the roots of Christianity than other apologists I have heard.

 

[Redbandito]

I am going to stop here for the night. You say “damn good point” and I get two “I have no problem with this” from redbandito…why ruin a good thing?

Yes! It was a rare day indeed. Anytime we can agree on any points, it is significant and constitutes rest. God bless you.

 

[Reformed1]

You mean you don’t believe the early councils are infallible, EXCEPT for Hippo and Carthage where the canon of the NT was determined…infallibly.

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.

 

[exiled]

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.

I hope you do start such a thread, because I’m having my own trouble figuring it out and defining it in conversation.