Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[SolaScriptura]

Folks-

This ought to be really easy. Just show us the passage in the Bible that says the the Bible Alone is the “sole infallible rule of faith.”

Explicity. Implicitly. Cobble something together if you have to. Do your best. We Catholics are listening intently to what you have to tell us. Chapter and verse, please.

Tell us you haven’t pinned your theological hopes to an unscriptural “tradition of men.”

Hi Randy,

I’ve answered this more than once. You guys have to deal with my argument and quit telling me how to argue. Would you like to be the first one to actually deal with the argument rationally?

 

[Reformed1]

Folks-

This ought to be really easy. Just show us the passage in the Bible that says the the Bible Alone is the “sole infallible rule of faith.”

Explicity. Implicitly. Cobble something together if you have to. Do your best. We Catholics are listening intently to what you have to tell us. Chapter and verse, please.

Tell us you haven’t pinned your theological hopes to an unscriptural “tradition of men.”

Why don’t you index for us the traditions that Paul speaks of in 2Thess 2:15?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

You know I find it quite odd that the Bible says nothing that would lead us to the assumption that it “alone” is sufficient for Christians. I also find it odd that Protestants constantly refer to Patrisitic resources when trying to prove Sola Scriptura. As a former Baptist, I often used Athanasius, Augustine, and other Church Fathers to “prove” that they were proponents of Sola Scriptura.

Dave Armstrong couldn’t have said it better:
Entire books are written about the Fathers’ supposed belief in sola Scriptura, when in fact they are merely expressing their belief in material sufficiency of Scripture, and its inspiration and sufficiency to refute heretics and false doctrine generally. It is easy to misleadingly present them as sola Scripturists if their statements elsewhere about apostolic Tradition or succession and the binding authority of the Church (especially in council) are ignored. But a half-truth is almost as bad as an untruth (arguably worse, because in most instances the one committing it should know better).* socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/did-st-athanasius-believe-in-sola_24.html

It is also funny how many Protestants will take selected quotes from Athanasius (most notoriously from the Festel Letters) to show that he was a proponent of Sola Scriptura. Yet what they fail to realize is that St. Athanasius constantly approved of pratices that many Protestants would be quick to call “Papism”.

As a former Baptist, I have seen with my own eyes how Protestants use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to again “prove” that the Bible does say that it is:

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,… he whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture” (The Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689)

However 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says nothing about Scripture being the ***only ***certain and infallible source of Divine revelation. The passage merely says that it is helpful for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

So as Dave Armstrong puts it:

*Scripture certainly is a “standard of truth” (we agree fully with Protestants), even the preeminent one, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or Rule of Faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency), in isolation from the Church and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages. Protestants try to make that argument, but (with all due respect) I think the effort is doomed to failure. I’ve never seen it, and I’ve discussed the issue with Protestants many, many times in the 13 years since my conversion. *

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola.html

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Why don’t you index for us the traditions that Paul speaks of in 2Thess 2:15?

I have heard this argument before, but like most James White arguments it is a dismal failure.

Anyone who uses this argument betrays that he/she has little to no understanding of The Development of Doctrine.

Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian):

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity.
(Introduction to St. Augustine’s City of God, in the 38-volume set of the Church fathers, edited by himself, December 10, 1886)

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Hi Randy,

I’ve answered this more than once. You guys have to deal with my argument and quit telling me how to argue. Would you like to be the first one to actually deal with the argument rationally?

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???

Peace

 

[SolaScriptura]

Reformed1:

Why don’t you index for us the traditions that Paul speaks of in 2Thess 2:15?

I have heard this argument before, but like most James White arguments it is a dismal failure.

Anyone who uses this argument betrays that he/she has little to no understanding of The Development of Doctrine.

Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian):

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity.
(Introduction to St. Augustine’s City of God, in the 38-volume set of the Church fathers, edited by himself, December 10, 1886)

Development of doctrine doesn’t answer the question, because Catholics use this verse as an example of infallible teaching outside of Scripture. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask you to document these teachings. Development of doctrine itself is based off of some teaching that is further developed, so you should still be able to tell us what teaching in 2 Thess. 2:15 is developed?

 

[SolaScriptura]

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???

Peace

Why is it so difficult for you to see you are attacking a strawman. It is not that difficult. The principle of sola Scriptura is based on good and necessary consequence, because of the unique status of Scripture. I don’t believe you can’t follow the simple argument so I’m assuming that you are hanging on to this strawman, because it is all you got.

 

[Reformed1]

I have heard this argument before, but like most James White arguments it is a dismal failure.

Anyone who uses this argument betrays that he/she has little to no understanding of The Development of Doctrine.

Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian):

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity.
(Introduction to St. Augustine’s City of God, in the 38-volume set of the Church fathers, edited by himself, December 10, 1886)

Okay, knowledge can deepen over time but so many of your traditions just appear on the scene centuries after the apostles and there is no way to tie the various traditions to the apostles.

Since you guys harp on 2 Thess 2:15 so much it would seem that you should be able to define exactly what the traditions are that were being taught by Paul to either the Corinthians, Thessalonians, or somebody somewhere. But, you can’t.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

But, you can’t.

Can you???

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Why is it so difficult for you to see you are attacking a strawman.

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.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Development of doctrine doesn’t answer the question, because Catholics use this verse as an example of infallible teaching outside of Scripture. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask you to document these teachings. Development of doctrine itself is based off of some teaching that is further developed, so you should still be able to tell us what teaching in 2 Thess. 2:15 is developed?

Can you document these teachings???

 

[mrs_abbott]

You know I find it quite odd that the Bible says nothing that would lead us to the assumption that it “alone” is sufficient for Christians. I also find it odd that Protestants constantly refer to Patrisitic resources when trying to prove Sola Scriptura. As a former Baptist, I often used Athanasius, Augustine, and other Church Fathers to “prove” that they were proponents of Sola Scriptura.

I don’t think that they claim it IS sufficient alone, as I’ve seen Augustine referenced for defending sola scriptura. By reading this thread, it appears that Protestants view the Bible as their reliable source of Truth, as no other written work is infallibly God’s Word.
That’s my understanding of it, anyways.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Some other interesting quotes from St. Augustine:

A DISCOURSE DELIVERED BEFORE A COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE NORTH AFRICAN EPISCOPATE ASSEMBLED AT HIPPO-REGIUS

CHAP. 1.–OF THE ORIGIN AND OBJECT OF THE COMPOSITION.

1. INASMUCH as it is a position, written and established on the most solid foundation of apostolic teaching, “that the just lives of faith;”(1) and inasmuch also as this faith demands of us the duty at once of heart and tongue,–for an apostle says, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,”(2)–it becomes us to be mindful both of righteousness and of salvation. For, destined as we are to reign hereafter in everlasting righteousness, we certainly cannot secure our salvation from the present evil world, unless at the same time, while laboring for the salvation of our neighbors, we likewise with the mouth make our own profession of the faith which we carry in our heart. And it must be our aim, by pious and careful watchfulness, to provide against the possibility of the said faith sustaining any injury in us, on any side, through the fraudulent artifices [or, cunning fraud] of the heretics.
   We have, however, the catholic faith in the Creed, known to the faithful and committed to memory, contained in a form of expression as concise as has been rendered admissible by the circumstances of the case; the purpose of which [compilation] was, that individuals who are but beginners and sucklings among those who have been born again in Christ, and who have not yet been strengthened by most diligent and spiritual handling and understanding of the divine Scriptures, should be furnished with a summary, expressed in few words, of those matters of necessary belief which were subsequently to be explained to them in many words, as they made progress and rose to [the height of] divine doctrine, on the assured and steadfast basis of humility and charity. It is underneath these few words, therefore, which are thus set in order in the Creed, that most heretics have endeavored to conceal their poisons; whom divine mercy has withstood, and still withstands, by the instrumentality of spiritual men, who have been counted worthy not only to accept and believe the catholic faith as expounded in those terms, but also thoroughly to understand and apprehend it by the enlightenment imparted by the Lord. For it is written, “Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand.”(3) But the handling of the faith is of service for the protection of the Creed; not, however, to the intent that this should itself be given instead of the Creed, to be committed to memory and repeated by those who are receiving the grace of God, but that it may guard the matters which are retained in the Creed against the insidious assaults of the heretics, by means of catholic authority and a more entrenched defence.
   …]
   Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in THE HOLY CHURCH, [intending thereby] assuredly the CATHOLIC. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as: it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor’s sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by Him who has reconciled us to Himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life. And until we reach the perfection of this new life, we cannot be without sins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sins may be.
   …]
2. Rise again, therefore, the body will, according to the Christian faith, which is incapable of deceiving.

But if, on the other hand, he has fallen upon the productions of some heretic and in ignorance, it may be, has retained in his mind anything which(1) the true faith condemns

, and yet supposes it to be catholic doctrine, then we must set ourselves sedulously to teach him, bringing before him (in its rightful superiority) the authority of the Church universal, (on the Catechisiing of the Uninstructed, ch.8)

 

[mrs_abbott]

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???

Peace

That’s not what sola scriptura is. Have you read S.S.'s post? Whether you agree or disagree with S.S., you’re missing the point of posts.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**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.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Here is a link you can check out:

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part1

from the LCBF, 1689

 

[E.E.N.S]

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.

Okay let’s take a look.

13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

v.14 … It says here to hold fast to the things that he has learned because knowing who it came from.
“All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

“profitable,”… this says it is profitable, not that it is sufficient.

This in no way supports your argument for sola scriptura.

 

[mikeledes]

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

 

[Blue_Serenity]

**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.

verses 15-17 spell it out in black and white.

 

[E.E.N.S]

verses 15-17 spell it out in black and white.

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.

Okay let’s take a look.

13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

v.14 … It says here to hold fast to the things that he has learned because knowing who it came from.
“All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

“profitable,”… this says it is profitable, not that it is sufficient.

This in no way supports your argument for sola scriptura.

“Black and white” indeed.