Sola scriptura as a "normative principle"

[CatholicSoxFan]

To solve the problem of what the Early Church/NT Church used as an authority before Scripture was written/determined, a common Protestant response I’ve heard is that sola scriptura is “normative” and that temporarily, Scripture was in the form of tradition. Now, the immediate intuitive response is that it seems ad hoc to say that the tradition that the NT Church used was just Scripture before it was written just to save sola scriptura. But is there a more powerful objection to this than that?

 

[robertkchacon]

Yes, there is a stronger argument. Thats just not historical. Its just not true.First, where in the bible does it say that the bible is the “normative” rule? It doesnt.

The the validity of the books of the bible was largely based on Tradition, the Tradition of the Mass, based on the books read and used during the Mass. Church Tradition developed the criteria for what the canon of the bible. The books of the bible did not fall out of the sky. They were not unanimously agreed upon by all the faithful or even all the bishops. Sola Scriptura proponents like to argue that since the Holy Spirit inspired the bible , the bible was made known by the Holy Spirit. Yes, it was, but the Holy Spirit worked through the Church and Her Traditions to discern that Spirit. It took discernment and councils. That was all in the context of the Church. Where did this criteria come from? It isnt listed somewhere in the bible! It came from Church Tradition.

The bible says to hold on to the Tradition of the Apostles , both written and spoken. Your friends argument would say that the spoken Tradition became written Tradition after the bible was formed. NO. The bible says that all the things that Christ said and did could not be contained by all the books of the world. So, there are teachings of Christ that were NOT included in all the books in the world. As the bible is a book in the world, not all of His teachings are in the bible. Therefore, where are these teachings and stories of Christ that are not in the bible? If you only follow the bible you are not following what the bible tells us to do - heed ALL the teachings. You are not following those Traditions spoken , those teachings/traditions that are not in the bible! You are missing half of what the bible says you are to follow. You are NOT following the bible itself!

Sola Scriptura is not even biblical. Your friends argument is simply a an attempt to justify sola scriptura, but its its simply not historically true and its simply wrong.

The Church is THE Pillar and Foundation of truth; not a pillar, THE pillar. And that is in the bible as well, in Timothy.

 

[rfournier103]

To solve the problem of what the Early Church/NT Church used as an authority before Scripture was written/determined, a common Protestant response I’ve heard is that sola scriptura is “normative” and that temporarily, Scripture was in the form of tradition. Now, the immediate intuitive response is that it seems ad hoc to say that the tradition that the NT Church used was just Scripture before it was written just to save sola scriptura. But is there a more powerful objection to this than that?

I would ask: “Where does it say that in the Bible?”

Do these Protestants have any kind of documentation to back that up? Or is this some kind of “hail mary” they’re throwing up; hoping that it’ll distract Catholics from the fact that they (the Protestants you’re arguing with) don’t have a leg to stand on?

 

[spina1953]

To solve the problem of what the Early Church/NT Church used as an authority before Scripture was written/determined, a common Protestant response I’ve heard is that sola scriptura is “normative” and that temporarily, Scripture was in the form of tradition. Now, the immediate intuitive response is that it seems ad hoc to say that the tradition that the NT Church used was just Scripture before it was written just to save sola scriptura. But is there a more powerful objection to this than that?

There is truth in that tradition was used before Scripture was written (NT) However that being said, since many of what was written down as NT Scripture was orally preached and taught does not mean that everything that the Apostles preached and taught that they themselves had learned from Christ Jesus was written down, so Sola Scripture does not really work in the sense the ad hoc manor the question you stated by those who are sola scriptura advocates think. It is why as Catholic’s reply on what the Church teaches because it is the deposit of faith first given to the Apostles and passed down to the present time so along with Scripture we have Tradition as it goes hand in hand.

 

[Jon_S_1]

To solve the problem of what the Early Church/NT Church used as an authority before Scripture was written/determined, a common Protestant response I’ve heard is that sola scriptura is “normative” and that temporarily, Scripture was in the form of tradition. Now, the immediate intuitive response is that it seems ad hoc to say that the tradition that the NT Church used was just Scripture before it was written just to save sola scriptura. But is there a more powerful objection to this than that?

Where in “the bible alone” does it say that!

 

[steymard]

What your friend has made is an assertion, not an argument. He needs to back it up.

Pointing out the ad hoc nature of this assertion is a very powerful argument in its own right.

Another big problem with the assertion that “Scripture briefly existed in the form of Tradition until it was written down” is to grant that Tradition was authoritative in its own right - i.e. a legitimate source of the Word of God, an essential part of the infallible deposit of faith left for us by Jesus Christ - and then to deny that authority in the same sentence. If Tradition is intrinsically capable of transmitting the teaching of Jesus Christ - as your friend must grant happened at least before some of it was written down - then it is always capable of doing so.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I would ask: “Where does it say that in the Bible?”

Do these Protestants have any kind of documentation to back that up? Or is this some kind of “hail mary” they’re throwing up; hoping that it’ll distract Catholics from the fact that they (the Protestants you’re arguing with) don’t have a leg to stand on?

rather they have a one-legged stool to stand on and that they have inherited of old from their forefathers/ancestors.

God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

To solve the problem of what the Early Church/NT Church used as an authority before Scripture was written/determined, a common Protestant response I’ve heard is that sola scriptura is “normative” and that temporarily, Scripture was in the form of tradition. Now, the immediate intuitive response is that it seems ad hoc to say that the tradition that the NT Church used was just Scripture before it was written just to save sola scriptura. But is there a more powerful objection to this than that?

do not see where the “paradigm” arrives from this time since, God’s son: the Word has all of the holy Bible contained in Him.

God bless

 

[rfournier103]

Also… who, pray tell, decided what the canon was???

 

[sirach2v4]

Vatican II’s Dei Verbum stated the obvious, that church teaching is based on scripture, tradition, and magisterium.

In EVERY Christian sect, there is scripture, as usual, but also some tradition and magisterium of some sort or other, whether they admit it or not.

As Yaroslav Pelikan, late erudite professor of church history at Yale University, said playfully, “scriptura” has never been “sola.”

If you back-track the idea in history, it simply derives to declarations of the so-called reformers. It is the most-dreaded and fundamental of Biblical errors, man-made doctrine.
They came up with their own man-made doctrine to offset what they perceived as Rome’s man-made doctrines.

If you compare scripture with the U.S. Constitution, the latter has been amended and interpreted often it seems to be inside out of what the framers intended. You have the HHS mandates which are attempting to destroy 1st Amendment freedom of religious expression and you have gun advocates whose possession of guns far exceeds the permitted “well-regulated militia.”

It’s hard to believe that even God expected bare-bones, every-man-for-himself interpretation of His word that must not change or be expanded,at least in interpretation, over time. It is ludicrous to accept divine inspiration of both or several sides of doctrinal disputes over scripture.

To examine a neutral matter of doctrine – gambling – see the entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia at this link

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gambling

It was prohibited (as a form of idolatry) for 15 centuries by the apostolic canons, then the Council of Trent came along and “pencil-whipped” the doctrine to virtually nothing.