Sola Scriptura: It's Found in the Bible and an Idiot Can Practice It

[Observing4Grace]

**Hey Ho, Here we go!

I see that most Catholics are confused and disillusioned by the idea that “Sola Scriptura” cannot be practiced. I can assure you that such is the nonsense of an misunderstanding apologist wishing for someone to fall into the trap of the Golden Index Syndrome. I’m quite new to this arena and I think that we should see and view this nonsense and bring it on.

First things first, Sola Scriptura is a principle that implies that
we should stick to the subjects that were addressed by God through the Bible. If there are traditions, they shouldn’t be binding to the Christian. I know quite well of the 2 Thessalonian quote most Catholics are going to use as “evidence” but that’s not going to support the idea that some “divine” traditions were mentioned in the Bible and the rest passed down orally.

Secondly, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that we’re going to get a perfect oneness in interpretation of scripture. People are bound to interpret things differently whether there be an “infallible” guide or not. Even if the answer is clear on a certain issue, people are going to question it anyway because of ignorance.

Finally, if we don’t abide to Scriptures alone, then we’re going to produce such false systems (Edited by Moderator) and re-interpret things without such evidences helping things out. Thus, Sola Scriptura must be practiced.

Parker**

 

[LRThunder]

The main problem with Sola Scriptura is, besides the fact that it’s not in the Bible, is that the Bible wasn’t officially completed until around 300 AD. The only Scriptures that had been officially put together were the books of the Old Testament. But there was no actual New Testament canon by the time of Paul’s ministries and the letters from Peter, James, or John.

 

[Micki]

**Hey Ho, Here we go! **

**I see that most Catholics are confused and disillusioned by the idea that “Sola Scriptura” cannot be practiced. I can assure you that such is the nonsense of an misunderstanding apologist wishing for someone to fall into the trap of the Golden Index Syndrome. I’m quite new to this arena and I think that we should see and view this nonsense and bring it on. **

**First things first, Sola Scriptura is a principle that implies that **
**we should stick to the subjects that were addressed by God through the Bible. If there are traditions, they shouldn’t be binding to the Christian. I know quite well of the 2 Thessalonian quote most Catholics are going to use as “evidence” but that’s not going to support the idea that some “divine” traditions were mentioned in the Bible and the rest passed down orally. **

Secondly, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that we’re going to get a perfect oneness in interpretation of scripture. People are bound to interpret things differently whether there be an “infallible” guide or not. Even if the answer is clear on a certain issue, people are going to question it anyway because of ignorance.

**Finally, if we don’t abide to Scriptures alone, then we’re going to produce such false systems (Edited by Moderator) and re-interpret things without such evidences helping things out. Thus, Sola Scriptura must be practiced. **

Parker

The Bible is a book of the Catholic Church. No false system here.

Micki

 

[Darrel]

Secondly, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that we’re going to get a perfect oneness in interpretation of scripture. People are bound to interpret things differently whether there be an “infallible” guide or not. Even if the answer is clear on a certain issue, people are going to question it anyway because of ignorance.

No loving father teaches his kids to choose from thousands of different versions of the truth. This would confuse the children and and cause the house to be divided against it’s self. If you believe in Sola Sciptura, you basically call God stupid. If he wanted the bible to be the center of things he would have given it to us on tablets of stone (or some other way) in it’s completed form just like the ten commandments. He would not have left it to the Catholic Church to compile the bible so seperatist from the Church could redefine it’s meaning a million confusing different ways.

-D

 

[mkarzon]

Sola Scriptura: It’s Found in the Bible and an Idiot Can Practice It

Where?

 

[kell0618]

Hello and Welcome!

This is a huge can of worms you have decided to take on and I commend you for tackling it; it is a worthy topic.

We cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are. If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation. But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible.

But this is something he cannot do. There is no canon list contained in scripture. Many books of the Bible (in fact, virtually all of the books of the New Testament) are not quoted by other books of the Bible, much less explicitly quoted “as scripture” (something on which Protestant apologists, as a matter of necessity, are very big). And the Bible gives us no set of tests by which we can infallibly prove which exact books belong in it. The fact is that there is no “inspired contents page” in the Bible to tell us what belongs within its covers.

Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic.
One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed. As anti-Catholics often point out, proposed traditions must be tested against scripture. If a proposed tradition contradicts something God has said in scripture (or something said in already known apostolic tradition) then that shows it is merely a tradition of men and may be disregarded. The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.

21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura:

• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible

• The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition

• The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."

• Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church

• Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

• The first Christians did not have a Bible

• The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

• The idea of the Scripture’s Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

• Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

• The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

• An “Extra-Biblical” Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

• The Belief that Scripture is “Self-Authenticating” Does Not Hold Up under Examination

• None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.

• The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations

• There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

• The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th********Century.

• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.

• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.

• The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books

• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.

So now, dear long lost friend, just who do you think gave you that Bible?

God bless you,

Kelly

 

[MariaG]

Just marking the thread. Many possible responses I can think of, but I don’t want to overwhelm a new poster until I see how often they post.

 

[Vincent]

Sola Scriptura can’t be practiced until we know what the *Scriptura *is.

For most of us, we come to identify what Scripture is because it has been handed over to us in the communion of Christ’s disciples.

Handed over = Tradition
Communion of Christ’s disciples = The Church

Even the simple act of reaching for a Bible at a Barnes and Noble and concluding, “The Word of God” is contingent upon the “handing over” in the Church.

Unless this basic epistemological issue can be satisfactorily addressed, the principle of sola Scriptura is nothing more than a self-referential inconsistency.

 

[Observing4Grace]

The main problem with Sola Scriptura is, besides the fact that it’s not in the Bible, is that the Bible wasn’t officially completed until around 300 AD. The only Scriptures that had been officially put together were the books of the Old Testament. But there was no actual New Testament canon by the time of Paul’s ministries and the letters from Peter, James, or John.

**Is that so? Could you explain to me why Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius and several others shortly after the deaths of the apostles quoted extensively from the NT and OT without appealing to scriptures? When Paul started a ministry, he made an appeal to the OT without help of the “divine” Jewish Traditions.

Parker **

 

[Observing4Grace]

The Bible is a book of the Catholic Church. No false system here.

Micki

**I’ll be happy to say that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures faithfully but I doubt Sacred Scriptures were produced by it.

Parker **

 

[water]

Being too over self-confident is not a good thing. Following His Words is not easy.

Are you following His Words 100%? let me know if you think it is easy.

By the way, welcome to the forums, Observing4Grace!

 

[Micki]

I’ll be happy to say that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures faithfully but I doubt Sacred Scriptures were produced by it.

**Parker **

The New Testament was written by the ORIGINAL Catholics. So we did preserve AND write the Bible.

Micki

 

[Observing4Grace]

No loving father teaches his kids to choose from thousands of different versions of the truth. This would confuse the children and and cause the house to be divided against it’s self. If you believe in Sola Sciptura, you basically call God stupid. If he wanted the bible to be the center of things he would have given it to us on tablets of stone (or some other way) in it’s completed form just like the ten commandments. He would not have left it to the Catholic Church to compile the bible so seperatist from the Church could redefine it’s meaning a million confusing different ways.

-D

**Darrel,

You’re missing the point to Sola Scriptura. No, I don’t mean by this definition in the sense that there are different versions of the truth. But to judge truth using something that will never break. The scriptures themselves are sufficient enough to defend and guide the church. If that weren’t so, could you possibly explain what did Jesus really meant by saying the “scriptures cannot be broken” or “It is written”?

Part of the “reformation” was exactly what it was: to REFORM. No, I don’t mean invent doctrines and such but to initially change or even dispose of what the Catholic Church began teaching that wasn’t initially part of scripture. (i.e. Bodily Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, etc. etc.) Why do you think Luther reduced the seven sacraments to only two…only because he found only two.

Parker **

 

[water]

**Why do you think Luther reduced the seven sacraments to only two…only because he found only two.

Parker**

talking about Luther, he also wanted to move quite few books because it was against his belief. Thanks to his friend who asked him not to do.

PS: please consdier using some color that is easy for people’s eyes. Red and bold is hard to read.

 

[RNRobert]

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that Christians who follow it can’t agree on what Scripture teaches (e.g., Baptism, salvation, etc.) Who is the ultimate arbiter in these circumstances? Protestantism would have you believe that when the Apostles died, they simply left behind some writings and expected the individual Christian to figure them out for themselves. The problem with this is that it presupposes that:

1. All Christians have access to the Bible (before the printing press, the most people simply couldn’t afford one)
   2)All Christians can *read *the Bible (before the printing press, many people were illiterate).

Also, most Christians do not know the original languages, and so must rely on a translation, so their understanding of Scripture is only as good as their translation. Would you expect someone whose only Bible was the New World Translation to reach the same conclusions as someone who had a better translation?
Scripture also states that it contains things hard to understand. I’m no Scripture scholar; if I have trouble understanding it, who can I trust to be a reliable teacher?

I cannot believe Jesus would leave us in the lurch like that with no teaching authority.

BTW, Luther and the others did not “reform” anything. Instead they shattered the Christian church and made a mockery of Jesus’ prayer that all be one.

 

[jonk]

Sola Scriptura wouldn’t be so bad if the various Protestant denominations had legitimate authority and could authoritatively, even if not infallibly, interpret the Scriptures and bind their followers. But in Protestantism you have a situation where each believer is his own pope and does not have any legitimate authority to listen to. Only the Apostolic churches can bind and loose. While many Protestants are outstanding Christians, the Protestant Christian can listen to no authority but has to rely on his own subjective feelings with regard to an interpretation of Scripture. Without authority, you have doctrinal anarchy, and that is, unfortunately, what has happened to Protestantism.

I doubt that the Reformers had intended this as an end result.

 

[Observing4Grace]

**Kelly,

I truly admire your welcoming sign, I appreciate it. I’m well aware of the idea of a “can of worms” so to speak because I’m familiar with the RCC stance. Most of the apologists here are bound to…one way or another going to repeat the same thing and nothing different. I am like most of everyone else is willing to explore the ECF’s in search of what the Catholic Church Says is in scripture.

“We cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are”
I’m sure we can because one would need to have the sacred cannon to begin with.

If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation.

That’s not quite true. Just because I happen to know what is and what’s not scripture doesn’t require me to be God. I’m only following what God has already revealed and using his word to fight against false doctrine.

But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible.

I have heard well into this claim, (so being that I’ve debated with other Catholics, mind you) and I’m all familiar with it. There are two things I must say before I give you an answer which is:

-Does the Catholic Church Itself have a replicate copy of the “Golden Table of Contents” from God himself promising to strike down those who do not hold fullness to truth?

-AND-

-Do the methods differ from Protestant Churches in how they determine scripture? (i.e. allowing scripture to speak for themselves) Did St. Jerome consult the pope to determine what belongs into scripture?

But this is something he cannot do. There is no canon list contained in scripture.

You’re absolutely right! Neither did the Bible fall from the sky onto our laps.

Many books of the Bible (in fact, virtually all of the books of the New Testament) are not quoted by other books of the Bible, much less explicitly quoted “as scripture” (something on which Protestant apologists, as a matter of necessity, are very big).

I must say, Kelly, you’re quite mistaken. Look where Jesus quoted in Matthew 4, how can anyone with such high authority ever bother to quote from the OT? Practically whatever words that come from his mouth are alluded even hinted to the concepts of the OT.

And the Bible gives us no set of tests by which we can infallibly prove which exact books belong in it.

I beg to differ. The Jewish people pretty much tested which books belong and which ones do not without any “divine” tradition needed to understand. Likewise with the NT. In fact, Kelly, I’m 100% positive that the Gospel Writers gave us a clue in how to figure which ones belonged. (i.e. Galatians 1:6-9) If other religioious textbooks like the Quran or the Book of Mormon were tested using this method, their theology falls flat.

The fact is that there is no “inspired contents page” in the Bible to tell us what belongs within its covers.

You’re right but if you’re going to suggest the Pope knows what belongs or the “church” knows, you’re certainly leading into a Mormon’s Path.

Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic.

If you mean by traditions as being “divine” may I ask why Jesus never spoke of this in a positive sentiment (outside the Moses’ Seat example)? Why did Jesus and the disciples make use of scriptures constantly?

One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed. As anti-Catholics often point out, proposed traditions must be tested against scripture.

That’s because proposed traditions (teachings) aren’t visibly there in any way. So what is there for us to do? Give it a chance and say it’s not man made?

If a proposed tradition contradicts something God has said in scripture (or something said in already known apostolic tradition) then that shows it is merely a tradition of men and may be disregarded. The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.

Sure given that the evidences hint and give suggestions to the doctrine. For instance instead of saying that because Enoch and Elijah are bodily assumed into heaven and using their instances to prove the same with Mary, the evidence itself (scripture) should readily say something that actually involved something about Mary.

Where Did the Divine Traditions Go?

Parker **

 

[LRThunder]

**Is that so? Could you explain to me why Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius and several others shortly after the deaths of the apostles quoted extensively from the NT and OT without appealing to scriptures? When Paul started a ministry, he made an appeal to the OT without help of the “divine” Jewish Traditions. **

**Parker **

I’m not saying NT books hadn’t been written, but there was still dispute what was inspired and what wasn’t. That wasn’t settled until 300-400 AD.

In any case, that doesn’t prove that Sola Scriptura is Biblical.

 

[MariaG]

Sola Scriptura: It’s Found in the Bible and an Idiot Can Practice It

Where?

Maybe you missed this question? Where is sola Scriptura found in the bible?

 

[Observing4Grace]

The New Testament was written by the ORIGINAL Catholics. So we did preserve AND write the Bible.

Micki

**Convince me how David was not a Jew.

Parker **