Sola Scriptura debate, Protestant objections

[YehoiakhinEx232]

Hello,
on October 2nd, I’m going to be starting up a Sola Scriptura debate. In this Sola Scriptura debate, I’m going to be arguing that the Bible isn’t a catechetical book, and that the intended audience of the Bible was, and still is, people who already know the basics of the Faith, and Sacred Tradition.

I would like someone to provide me with a list of objections Protestants will have to this argument, provided that these arguments stay on topic, and don’t attack Sacred Tradition.

The only objection I can think of so-far is: "Sola Scriptura doesn’t state that Scripture is obvious, it just states that Scripture is the only infallible authority.

Can someone provide me with other objections Protestants will have?

 

[po18guy]

I think you might be doing this backward. Since bible alone is a doctrine of maybe two or three rebellious men pre-Luther, and appeared over 1,200 years after Christ established His Church, I rather like Dr. David Anders’ question to bible types: How did Jesus intend for the faith to be handed on? What advice did He give? What structure or individuals did He appoint for the handing on of the faith? Did He recommend that believers run to the (non-existent) NT scriptures for any reason at all? Catholicism is often falsely accused of having man-made doctrines, when the gigantic elephant in the Protestant living room is the 100% man-made doctrine of bible alone.

Thus, it is perhaps better to ask SS types for references that indicate that Jesus taught bible alone, that He wrote anything which was passed on, or that He commanded the writing of anything, or evidence that He intended believers to run to the scriptures when the inevitable disputes arose.

There is scriptural evidence for exactly none of this. Bible as sole rule is the allegation, placing the burden of proof upon those who hold to it.

 

[EricF]

Dr. Anders is brilliant!