Sola scriptura revisited

[Miguel_Sastre]

Hi everyone.

First, I’ve seen about a dozen comments in the last few days, mostly in threads about Marian beliefs, which all boil down to a demand that Protestants justify sola scriptura. These demands usually are made when the Catholic is either grasping for straws to defend a doctrine with a weak scriptural basis like the Immaculate Conception or when he or she is simply asked by Protestants to show where X is in scripture, as if such a request were unreasonable.

Few, if any, of the ECFs would have balked at such a request since they worked from the assumption that all the truths of the faith were contained in scripture and that all godly defenders of the faith could be relied upon to make their case from the Sacred Page. The Bereans double cheked Paul’s claims against scripture and were commended by Luke as being “noble minded” for doing so. Jesus subordinates the man-made traditions of Pharasical Judaism to the norm of scripture as a matter of course and even makes a case for the Resurrection of the body to the Sadducees by limiting his argument to the Torah-alone (since they did not regard the Prophets and Writings as normative) in Mark 12:18-27.

But when Protestants insist that that doctrinal claims have a scriptural basis, they’re routinely asked justify this insistence, as if they were introducing some newfangled idea. Sometimes they’re even made fun of for such things as VBS, Christian colleges, youth groups, etc as if it were a violation of sola scriptura to have such institutions.

The argument that keeps coming up over and over again seems to go more or less as follows:

“All doctrine must be in scripture is itself a doctrine. Therefore this claim must itself be in scripture. But the Bible no where states that all doctrine must be in scripture and so scripture doesn’t teach sola scriptura (but it has to, if sola scriptura is true!).”

I’m not going to give a lengthy refutation of this argument here. But let me just sketch out some possible ways of replying to it.

1. The argument rests on a confusion between a doctrine (which is derived from a set of propositions) and a principle (which is where the propositions come from). Sola scriptura is axiomatic. It’s a principle. It’s a theological starting point. It’s a presupposition. As such, we don’t look to the Bible for the words, “use only the Bible to derive doctrines,” in order to know that we’re to “use only the Bible to derive doctrines.” To give an analogy from philosophy, God is considered to be the first cause, himself uncaused. In a cosmological argument, we push all the way back to the beginning and what we get to is God. Once you understand that “God” is the eternally self-existing uncreated being, then you know why you can’t ask, “Ah yes, but who created God?” Such a question betrays a misunderstanding of what a principle is. Likewise, if the Bible is God’s word, then we don’t need to pedantically demand that it explicitly spell out that we’re only to use God’s word to establish doctrine. Doctrine is divine teaching and so can only come from the mind of God and so can only be known from God’s word, which is the expression of God’s mind. Sola scriptura is the claim that the extant scriptures are the only infallible access we have to God’s mind. While God’s word can exist in unwritten form for a time, the pattern seems to be that it is eventually inscripturated so that it becomes stable and accessible to His people over time.
2. Sola scriptura is also a slogan of protest–a shorthand way of saying that 3-2 = 1. When 2 of the 3 claimants to infallibility have erred (i.e., the magisterium and church tradition), then the only infallible rule of faith we have left is the divine scriptures–the only one of the three that is “God-breathed.” Here the Bible doesn’t have to say, “only use me for doctrine.” We come to that conclusion quite naturally and inevitably when the church errs in its traditions and then further errs in elevating those to dogmas by magisterial decree.
3. While the Bible doesn’t explicitly say, “Use just the Bible to determine doctrine,” it nevertheless drives us to that conclusion in a number of ways. On the positive side, only scripture is called God-breathed, it is routinely used to settle doctrinal disputes, it alone is used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and it alone is used to put man-made precepts into proper perspective. When Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to “go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6) he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle. Apparently it was a slogan. But what could it possibly mean other than making sure all doctrine and practices comply with scripture? So while the Bible doesn’t say, “Use only me for doctrine,” it does spell that principle out in many of its passages or approvingly illustrates people who presupposed that principle.

Comments?

 

[EricFilmer]

I’ll start the ball rolling with this…

1. Tradition, not Scripture, tells us what books belong in the Bible in the first place. The Bible does not tell us what the standards are for determining what is and what is not actually Sacred Scripture. Both the Jews and the early Christians had many works that some purported to be divinely inspired, but it was through Tradition and an action of the Magisterium that determined which ones were truly inspired.
2. St. Paul did not limit his teaching to Scripture:
   “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or by mouth or by letter.” (2Thess 2:15, RSV)
   (Something taught “by mouth” is not, by definition, Scripture)

“What you have learned and received and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.” (Philippians 4:9).
(Obviously St. Paul cannot be referring to Scripture when he says to learn from what is “seen in him”).

1. If God truly wanted the Bible to be the only basis for Christian doctrine, it stands to reason he would have stated that somewhere in the Bible. The various books of the Bible were penned by several different people over a span of several centuries. If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine then one would expect that somewhere along the way this doctrine would have been revealed specifically in Scripture. Look at all the hundreds of pages and thousands of verses of the prophets alone in the Bible. Wouldn’t God have had just ONE of them say something like, “My revelation will only come in the form of Scripture, so only use Scripture as the basis of your teaching”? If just one single verse in the whole Bible had this, we would all be adherents of Sola Scriptura.

1. The argument rests on a confusion between a doctrine (which is derived from a set of propositions) and a principle (which is where the propositions come from). Sola scriptura is axiomatic. It’s a principle. It’s a theological starting point. It’s a presupposition…

1. In this quote (and in the text that follows it) you give what you consider to be a rationalization for Sola Scriptura. The problem is that you are trying to demonstrate the validity of a doctrine that states “Scripture Alone” with a rationalization that is not actually in Scripture. It is not “Scripture & Miguel’s Rationalization Alone” but “Scripture Alone.” As much as you try to get around it, any credible defense of Sola Scriptura has to follow its own rule.

And let me ask you this, if I came up with a Christian doctrine based upon my own rationalization, but it was not in the Bible, would you accept it? And would you accept a rational but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? If not then why do you think a rational but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is credible?

To give an analogy from philosophy, God is considered to be the first cause, himself uncaused. In a cosmological argument, we push all the way back to the beginning and what we get to is God. Once you understand that “God” is the eternally self-existing uncreated being, then you know why you can’t ask, “Ah yes, but who created God?” Such a question betrays a misunderstanding of what a principle is. Likewise, if the Bible is God’s word, then we don’t need to pedantically demand that it explicitly spell out that we’re only to use God’s word to establish doctrine.

1. First of all, you presume that the term “God’s Word” is Scripture but not also Sacred Tradition. To Catholics, it is both.
   Secondly, in this quote you try to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with philosophy. But it is not “Scripture and Philosophy Alone,” but rather “Scripture Alone.” Once again, you have to defend this doctrine by its own rules.

And let me ask you this, would you believe in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if I gave you a philosophical but unbiblical argument for it? If not, then why do you think a philosophical but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is credible?

Doctrine is divine teaching and so can only come from the mind of God and so can only be known from God’s word, which is the expression of God’s mind. Sola scriptura is the claim that the extant scriptures are the only infallible access we have to God’s mind.

1. If Scripture itself provides an infallible access to God’s mind then why do so many Protestants debate over interpretations of the Bible? Two contradicting interpretations of a Scripture verse cannot both be infallible. Either one is correct and the other is false, or both are false. How does the proposed infallibility of Scripture defend itself against faulty interpretations?

 

[ignatius777]

Hi everyone.

First, I’ve seen about a dozen comments in the last few days, mostly in threads about Marian beliefs, which all boil down to a demand that Protestants justify sola scriptura. These demands usually are made when the Catholic is either grasping for straws to defend a doctrine with a weak scriptural basis like the Immaculate Conception or when he or she is simply asked by Protestants to show where X is in scripture, as if such a request were unreasonable.

Few, if any, of the ECFs would have balked at such a request since they worked from the assumption that all the truths of the faith were contained in scripture and that all godly defenders of the faith could be relied upon to make their case from the Sacred Page. The Bereans double cheked Paul’s claims against scripture and were commended by Luke as being “noble minded” for doing so. Jesus subordinates the man-made traditions of Pharasical Judaism to the norm of scripture as a matter of course and even makes a case for the Resurrection of the body to the Sadducees by limiting his argument to the Torah-alone (since they did not regard the Prophets and Writings as normative) in Mark 12:18-27.

But when Protestants insist that that doctrinal claims have a scriptural basis, they’re routinely asked justify this insistence, as if they were introducing some newfangled idea. Sometimes they’re even made fun of for such things as VBS, Christian colleges, youth groups, etc as if it were a violation of sola scriptura to have such institutions.

The argument that keeps coming up over and over again seems to go more or less as follows:

“All doctrine must be in scripture is itself a doctrine. Therefore this claim must itself be in scripture. But the Bible no where states that all doctrine must be in scripture and so scripture doesn’t teach sola scriptura (but it has to, if sola scriptura is true!).”

I’m not going to give a lengthy refutation of this argument here. But let me just sketch out some possible ways of replying to it.

1. The argument rests on a confusion between a doctrine (which is derived from a set of propositions) and a principle (which is where the propositions come from). Sola scriptura is axiomatic. It’s a principle. It’s a theological starting point. It’s a presupposition. As such, we don’t look to the Bible for the words, “use only the Bible to derive doctrines,” in order to know that we’re to “use only the Bible to derive doctrines.” To give an analogy from philosophy, God is considered to be the first cause, himself uncaused. In a cosmological argument, we push all the way back to the beginning and what we get to is God. Once you understand that “God” is the eternally self-existing uncreated being, then you know why you can’t ask, “Ah yes, but who created God?” Such a question betrays a misunderstanding of what a principle is. Likewise, if the Bible is God’s word, then we don’t need to pedantically demand that it explicitly spell out that we’re only to use God’s word to establish doctrine. Doctrine is divine teaching and so can only come from the mind of God and so can only be known from God’s word, which is the expression of God’s mind. Sola scriptura is the claim that the extant scriptures are the only infallible access we have to God’s mind. While God’s word can exist in unwritten form for a time, the pattern seems to be that it is eventually inscripturated so that it becomes stable and accessible to His people over time.
2. Sola scriptura is also a slogan of protest–a shorthand way of saying that 3-2 = 1. When 2 of the 3 claimants to infallibility have erred (i.e., the magisterium and church tradition), then the only infallible rule of faith we have left is the divine scriptures–the only one of the three that is “God-breathed.” Here the Bible doesn’t have to say, “only use me for doctrine.” We come to that conclusion quite naturally and inevitably when the church errs in its traditions and then further errs in elevating those to dogmas by magisterial decree.
3. While the Bible doesn’t explicitly say, “Use just the Bible to determine doctrine,” it nevertheless drives us to that conclusion in a number of ways. On the positive side, only scripture is called God-breathed, it is routinely used to settle doctrinal disputes, it alone is used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and it alone is used to put man-made precepts into proper perspective. When Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to “go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6) he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle. Apparently it was a slogan. But what could it possibly mean other than making sure all doctrine and practices comply with scripture? So while the Bible doesn’t say, “Use only me for doctrine,” it does spell that principle out in many of its passages or approvingly illustrates people who presupposed that principle.

Comments?

I do like how you justify your non biblically based belief of sola scriptura by pointing out what you think is the non biblcal belief of the immaculate conception. Why not just defend your own stance?

 

[fermat]

On the positive side, only scripture is called God-breathed…

Out of genuine curiosity, where is that in scripture? I know in Timothy, scripture records, ‘All scripture is God-breathed’, but it doesn’t say, only scripture. Is there another place that records the ‘only’?

 

[Cat_Herder]

1. The argument rests on a confusion between a doctrine (which is derived from a set of propositions) and a principle (which is where the propositions come from). Sola scriptura is axiomatic. It’s a principle. It’s a theological starting point. It’s a presupposition.

Presupposition is not proof. Go to college, take a class and just try writing “I presuppose the answer is X” on your final exam essay. You will fail, because you have proven nothing.

Calvin cooked up presuppositional apologetics so he could dodge the hard questions. Well, today’s atheists, agnostics, and liberals are asking the hard questions—especially to Evangelical college students. It happened to me in undergrad; a professor told me that religion is just a crutch that one uses to cover up gaps in one’s epistemology. With a presuppositional faith, the professor is correct. But with a reasonable faith, one can counter the atheists and reprove them.

The centerpiece of a reasoned explanation of the Christian faith is, of course, the spiral argument. But accepting it means you can no longer be your own pope.

As such, we don’t look to the Bible for the words, “use only the Bible to derive doctrines,” in order to know that we’re to “use only the Bible to derive doctrines.” To give an analogy from philosophy, God is considered to be the first cause, himself uncaused. In a cosmological argument, we push all the way back to the beginning and what we get to is God. Once you understand that “God” is the eternally self-existing uncreated being, then you know why you can’t ask, “Ah yes, but who created God?” Such a question betrays a misunderstanding of what a principle is.

God is not a principle. He is a Person. Thus, we can ask that question and we can answer it. The answer is that nothing came before God because God existed before time and in fact created time.

Likewise, if the Bible is God’s word, then we don’t need to pedantically demand that it explicitly spell out that we’re only to use God’s word to establish doctrine.

But first you must prove that your Bible is God’s word, or what is referred to by the word “Scripture” in 2 Tim. 3:16. Does it include the Old Testament only, or also the New Testament which hadn’t yet been completely written? Does it include the Qur’an? The Book of Mormon? And which translation? The Jehovah’s Witness translation?

Doctrine is divine teaching and so can only come from the mind of God and so can only be known from God’s word, which is the expression of God’s mind.

God did not just create the Bible. He created all that is seen and unseen.

The laws of physics are thus also an expression of God’s mind. While you won’t find magnetism in the Bible, it is nonetheless true. Go play with the magnets on your refrigerator if you doubt that.

Evolution is also an expression of God’s mind. Many Catholics, myself included, accept that the Earth is about four billion years old and that the human body (not the soul) evolved from a common ancestor with the ape. We also accept that the Bible is infallible in every truth that God intended to express therein. That the Genesis “days” are 24 hour periods is not one of them; the Hebrew “yom” doesn’t mean 24 hours.

Sola scriptura is the claim that the extant scriptures are the only infallible access we have to God’s mind. While God’s word can exist in unwritten form for a time, the pattern seems to be that it is eventually inscripturated so that it becomes stable and accessible to His people over time.

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

1. Sola scriptura is also a slogan of protest–a shorthand way of saying that 3-2 = 1. When 2 of the 3 claimants to infallibility have erred (i.e., the magisterium and church tradition),

They haven’t erred. That’s the whole point. You THINK the Catholic Church teaches doctrines that contradict Scripture. However, the Church’s doctrines contradict not the Bible, but YOUR FALLIBLE INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Every single one of them has a scriptural basis, even and especially the Marian dogmata. Please review the links on my profile to enlighten yourself in this regard.

Long story short, please remember that you are a man and your practices are tradition.

1. While the Bible doesn’t explicitly say, “Use just the Bible to determine doctrine,” it nevertheless drives us to that conclusion in a number of ways. On the positive side, only scripture is called God-breathed,

God also breathed into the Apostles.

it is routinely used to settle doctrinal disputes,

So were the Apostles.

it alone is used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah,

The Gentiles did not have the Old Testament or any clue of its promises.

and it alone is used to put man-made precepts into proper perspective.

Of course, it doesn’t say that.

When Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to “go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6) he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle.

Nope, because Paul referred to a letter which is not part of the Bible.

 

[EricFilmer]

And to continue my material I started in Post #2…

On the positive side, only scripture is called God-breathed,

Adam was "God-breathed."
Gen 2:7: “…then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

The Apostles were “God-breathed”.
John 20:22 - “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’.”

And what verse in the Bible are you claiming says, “Scripture is God breathed”? I’m not saying that Scripture is not, but I want to know what you are citing. I’m guessing it actually says that the “Torah” is God-breathed. If that is the case then, depending on the definition of “Torah” understood by the author, it could be that the statement only refers to the first five books of the Bible (as this is the most prominent definition of the term; “torah” means “law” and usually refers to the Law of Moses as contained in these specific books). So if your argument is that Sola Scriptura is valid because the “Torah” is “God-breathed” then you will have to throw out everything in your Bible that was written after the first five books of the Bible. And this situation will even be more problematic if the verse you cite is not itself found in the Torah!!!

…it is routinely used to settle doctrinal disputes,

Even a basic overview of the documents of the Early Church councils shows that both Scripture and Tradition were used to settle disputes.

Furthermore, what Scripture did Solomon use to settle the dispute between the two women arguing over a child? I’m sure I could come up with many more examples if needed.

it alone is used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah,

By performing the Messianic Miracles, Jesus also proved that he was the Messiah. For example, only the Messiah could heal a person who was blind since birth. Only the Messiah could exorcise a mute demon. Only the Messiah could resurrect someone who had been dead for over three days. None of these Messianic Miracles are expressly defined as such in the Bible, but come from Ancient Jewish tradition.

Furthermore, according to the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s epistles, the main proof the first Christians offered in their claim that Jesus was the Messiah was their personal testimony on encountering the Resurrected Christ. And this testimony was initially shared verbally before any of it was committed to writing.

Can Scripture be used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah? Yes, in the sense that he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. But I don’t see how you can say Scripture “alone is used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah.”

and it alone is used to put man-made precepts into proper perspective. When Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to “go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6) he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle. Apparently it was a slogan. But what could it possibly mean other than making sure all doctrine and practices comply with scripture?

The quotes from St. Paul that I used in Post #2 clearly show that he could not be a supporter of a Sola Scriptura doctrine. Furthermore, any Scriptures that he alludes to in his Epistles would only be the Old Testament. He would not be referring to the New Testament, especially the parts of the New Testament that were written after he wrote 1 Corinthians. Therefore, if you believe that St. Paul taught Sola Scriptura as a slogan, you will have to throw out the entire New Testament, including 1Corinthians and his slogan!

 

[StTommyMore]

This is why Sola Scriptura as a false teaching.

 

[DavidFilmer]

And what verse in the Bible are you claiming says, “Scripture is God breathed”? I’m not saying that Scripture is not, but I want to know what you are citing. I’m guessing it actually says that the “Torah” is God-breathed.

The OP is referring to 2Tim 3:16. In some modern protestant translations (such as the NIV, which the OP has probably been tricked into using) the phrase “inspired by God” is rendered “god-breathed.” The Greek θεόπνευστος does have πνέω as a (presumed) derivative root word, so the translation is not *totally *without merit (only mostly without merit). All traditional protestant translations (such as the KJV and RSV) render it as “inspired by God.”

The word for Scripture (γραφή, or graphē) **in Greek simply means “writing” (and is the etymological root for English words such as graphics, autograph, lithograph, and iconography). It is the typical word used for “scripture” in the NT, but the idea of graphē referring to a “sacred” writing is inferred by the context.

Of course, in context, 2Tim 3:16 must refer only to the Torah, as these were the only “scriptures” that Timothy knew from his youth (2Tim 3:15).

 

[pablope]

Hi everyone.

First, I’ve seen about a dozen comments in the last few days, mostly in threads about Marian beliefs, which all boil down to a demand that Protestants justify sola scriptura. These demands usually are made when the Catholic is either grasping for straws to defend a doctrine with a weak scriptural basis like the Immaculate Conception or when he or she is simply asked by Protestants to show where X is in scripture, as if such a request were unreasonable.

then you know why you can’t ask, “Ah yes, but who created God?” Such a question betrays a misunderstanding of what a principle is. Likewise, if the Bible is God’s word, then we don’t need to pedantically demand that it explicitly spell out that we’re only to use God’s word to establish doctrine. Doctrine is divine teaching and so can only come from the mind of God and so can only be known from God’s word, which is the expression of God’s mind. Sola scriptura is the claim that the extant scriptures are the only infallible access we have to God’s mind. While God’s word can exist in unwritten form for a time, the pattern seems to be that it is eventually inscripturated so that it becomes stable and accessible to His people over time.

sure all doctrine and practices comply with scripture? So while the Bible doesn’t say, “Use only me for doctrine,” it does spell that principle out in many of its passages or approvingly illustrates people who presupposed that principle.

Comments?

May I suggest that you summarize what is your definition of Sola Scriptura is, and go from there.

There are additional threads regarding this subject under “Non-Catholic” section. If I may suggest, you may want to move it there, but if you do not this is fine. It is just that you will get more responses there, I think. But it is fine here, if you wish.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Miguel,
I will be back later to respond fully but I figured I can give it a small shot.

Your OP presupposes two things:

1. That we did not respond to the request of providing Scripture for the doctrine. We did do that many times. We have done that many times. As a matter of fact, we have had to repeat ourselves many many many times in response to the same questions. Sometimes you all ask for EXACT quotes when you yourselves cannot do when we ask. It is you all who do not answer our requests or questions.
2. That our scriptural basis is weak for our doctrine. Of course, you think it is weak. You are not Catholic. You provide no proof for this conclusion.

Please do not turn into an unreasonable non-Catholic. You had really good comments but this thread is making you slip out of the realms of quality arguments. It is not because you are arguing against the Church. It is because of your two presuppositions on us.

 

[DavidFilmer]

When Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to “go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6) he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle. Apparently it was a slogan. But what could it possibly mean other than making sure all doctrine and practices comply with scripture?

Is it really so sure? Is there really no other possible answer?

Well, first of all, 1Cor is one of the earliest writings (if not THE earliest) of the NT (it is usually dated around 50-55 AD). It certainly predates the earliest of the Gospels (Mark, ca 70 AD).

So, when Paul admonished the Corinthians not to exceed what was written, he could have not been talking about the Gospels or any other NT texts, which had not yet been written. He was either talking about the Torah, or what he had already written in that particular letter. Most scholars take the latter interpretation, and say he was referring to 1Cor 3:5-9, 1Cor 3:21, and 1Cor 4:1.

But why should I say more? CA has already demolished this idea in an article in This Rock; see here.

 

[jbecknell]

I’ll start the ball rolling with this…

1. Tradition, not Scripture, tells us what books belong in the Bible in the first place. The Bible does not tell us what the standards are for determining what is and what is not actually Sacred Scripture. Both the Jews and the early Christians had many works that some purported to be divinely inspired, but it was through Tradition and an action of the Magisterium that determined which ones were truly inspired.
2. St. Paul did not limit his teaching to Scripture:
   “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or by mouth or by letter.” (2Thess 2:15, RSV)
   (Something taught “by mouth” is not, by definition, Scripture)

“What you have learned and received and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.” (Philippians 4:9).
(Obviously St. Paul cannot be referring to Scripture when he says to learn from what is “seen in him”).

1. If God truly wanted the Bible to be the only basis for Christian doctrine, it stands to reason he would have stated that somewhere in the Bible. The various books of the Bible were penned by several different people over a span of several centuries. If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine then one would expect that somewhere along the way this doctrine would have been revealed specifically in Scripture. Look at all the hundreds of pages and thousands of verses of the prophets alone in the Bible. Wouldn’t God have had just ONE of them say something like, “My revelation will only come in the form of Scripture, so only use Scripture as the basis of your teaching”? If just one single verse in the whole Bible had this, we would all be adherents of Sola Scriptura.
2. In this quote (and in the text that follows it) you give what you consider to be a rationalization for Sola Scriptura. The problem is that you are trying to demonstrate the validity of a doctrine that states “Scripture Alone” with a rationalization that is not actually in Scripture. It is not “Scripture & Miguel’s Rationalization Alone” but “Scripture Alone.” As much as you try to get around it, any credible defense of Sola Scriptura has to follow its own rule.

And let me ask you this, if I came up with a Christian doctrine based upon my own rationalization, but it was not in the Bible, would you accept it? And would you accept a rational but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? If not then why do you think a rational but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is credible?

1. First of all, you presume that the term “God’s Word” is Scripture but not also Sacred Tradition. To Catholics, it is both.
   Secondly, in this quote you try to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with philosophy. But it is not “Scripture and Philosophy Alone,” but rather “Scripture Alone.” Once again, you have to defend this doctrine by its own rules.

And let me ask you this, would you believe in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if I gave you a philosophical but unbiblical argument for it? If not, then why do you think a philosophical but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is credible?

1. If Scripture itself provides an infallible access to God’s mind then why do so many Protestants debate over interpretations of the Bible? Two contradicting interpretations of a Scripture verse cannot both be infallible. Either one is correct and the other is false, or both are false. How does the proposed infallibility of Scripture defend itself against faulty interpretations?

Eric, what an amazing defense of Catholic teaching. Thanks for taking the time to respond the way you did. I think I’m going to steal some of your quotes and say they were my own.

 

[DavidFilmer]

He was either talking about the Torah, or what he had already written in that particular letter.

Or, of course, he may have also included what he wrote in Zero Corinthians.

First Corinthians was not *actually *the first epistle that Paul wrote to that community. In 1Cor, Paul makes reference to an *earlier *letter (1Cor 5:9).

I’ve always thought that Zero Corinthians adds an interesting dimension to the question of Sola Scriptura. What if we found it, and we could (somehow) prove its authenticity? What if it firmly endorsed some idea that was endorsed by some protestants but rejected by others (such as the idea of infant baptism, which is endorsed by Calvinists (such as Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians) but rejected by others, such as Evangelicals?

Five years ago, I posted this topic in CAF, and it attracted a few interesting responses.

I mention this here because it helps to illustrate that the Canon of Scripture (ie, the list (canon) of which writings are included in the Bible) did not define itself. It was defined by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the reason that Revelation is included in our Bibles, but the Shepherd of Hermas is not. The Catholic Church is the reason that the Gospel of Luke is included, but the Gospel of Thomas is not.

The Canon of Scripture did not define itself - it was defined by the Catholic Church. Every single protestant New Testament agrees with the Church’s definition (OK, yeah, I know - Martin Luther briefly threw out James and Revelations, but let’s not get sidetracked by the occasional megalomaniac). The Canon is not Scriptural (because Scripture never enumerates the Canon) - the Canon is purely Catholic Tradition. Why does every protestant in the whole world accept (without question or doubt) Catholic Tradition when it comes to the Canon of the New Testament, but rejects Catholic Tradition in all other matters?

 

[kepha1]

First, I’ve seen about a dozen comments in the last few days, mostly in threads about Marian beliefs, which all boil down to a demand that Protestants justify sola scriptura.

No, they all boil down to who has the authority to teach what the scriptures mean. The arguments used against Marian beliefs are based on a false premise. In order for sola scriptura to work, the Bible would have to be so clear that no outside information would be needed to interpret it. This premise is illogical because the Bible is not that clear. This premise is anti-biblical because it self-destructs.

These demands usually are made when the Catholic is either grasping for straws to defend a doctrine with a weak scriptural basis like the Immaculate Conception or when he or she is simply asked by Protestants to show where X is in scripture, as if such a request were unreasonable.

Then it shouldn’t be unreasonable to show the full doctrine of the Trinity as It was clarified (and accepted by most Protestants) to refute the Arian heresy, using scripture alone. It shouldn’t be unreasonable to explain how Nestorius was excommunicated for rejecting “Theotokos” out of his heresy on the Incarnation using scripture alone. But you accept none of this because it fails your premise. That may explain why so many evangelicals are Nestorian when it comes to the Mother of God. (a bad transliteration of “God -bearer”)

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has been explained with long lists of text and OT typology. You just choose to ignore them because they fail your premise. (which rests on 16th century Nominalism)

Few, if any, of the ECFs would have balked at such a request since they worked from the assumption that all the truths of the faith were contained in scripture and that all godly defenders of the faith could be relied upon to make their case from the Sacred Page.

The ECF used the scriptures in the material sufficient sense, not in the formal sufficient sense. Scriptures are and always have been the primary source for doctrine, but scriptures do not say it is the only source. It’s odd that you would claim the ECF adhering to sola scriptura, but ignore everything they taught.

Material and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture

The Bereans double cheked Paul’s claims against scripture and were commended by Luke as being “noble minded” for doing so.

Wrong. It does not say the Bereans double checked the scriptures alone.
The Bereans accepted oral teaching from Paul before searching the scriptures.
The Bereans were “noble minded” for not being crazy like the Thessalonians in Acts 17: 5-9, not because they searched the scriptures. It was customary for Paul to direct his listeners to use scripture (Acts 17:3) so the claim that the Bereans were noble minded for searching the scriptures becomes further redundant.

Jesus subordinates the man-made traditions of Pharasical Judaism to the norm of scripture as a matter of course and even makes a case for the Resurrection of the body to the Sadducees by limiting his argument to the Torah-alone (since they did not regard the Prophets and Writings as normative) in Mark 12:18-27.

That only proves that Jesus spoke to the stubborn Sadducees in terms that they would accept. It doesn’t prove that Jesus taught that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. The very concept, principle, presupposition, explicitly or implicitly or whatever-you-wanna-call-it, is nowhere in Scripture. All scripture is God-breathed, but it does not say only scripture is God-breathed.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The bible is a tradition itself, therefore sola scripture cannot stand.

Jesus condemned man made traditions, not divine traditions.

Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition.

The Beroeans were better than the Thessolonians since the Beroeans actually willing to listen, whereas the others did not. What Paul was preaching was that what happened to Christ was prophecized in the OT to happen to the Messiah.

This does not prove sola scripture, it just proves Scripture is important.

There are times in the NT where the apostles use Jewish tradition authoritatively to make a point as in Jude 1 quoting the tradition of Enoch

 

[Chesster]

Well, you certainly have your work cut out for you in this thread. I think you may find yourself overwhelmed in trying to respond to so many “comments”.

Anyway, here is my two cents.

The flaw in SS is that no one has the authority to declare who is right in a dispute. Who has the power to resolve questions that arise from time to time and to whose decision are we to submit? How are Christians to know true dogmas of faith from false and correct precepts of morality? How do you stop endless disputes and controversies with no judge?

In your list number 3 you cite 1 Cor. 4:6 and say, “he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle.” Why should we believe your interpretation over another? If there is no other rule of faith then Scripture and private interpretation how do we ascertain truth when one’s interpretation is opposed to another?

When you remove the authority of the Church every error will be embraced.

 

[EricFilmer]

Eric, what an amazing defense of Catholic teaching. Thanks for taking the time to respond the way you did. I think I’m going to steal some of your quotes and say they were my own.

Thanks for the kind words, jbecknell.
And as far as I am concerned, my apologetical materials are your apologetical materials.
The more these (and others’) rebuttals get spread around to shed true light in defense of Catholic teaching, the better.

Then it shouldn’t be unreasonable to show the full doctrine of the Trinity as It was clarified (and accepted by most Protestants) to refute the Arian heresy, using scripture alone.

I’m glad you brought this up, kepha. Good point! As a Benedictine monk (who taught patristics) once told me, “Even though Arius was a heretic, he was also good biblical exegete.” His point was that we can denounce Arius’ views as heresy, but we cannot say that his heretical views resulted from a poor exegetical examination of the Bible. This example serves to prove one of the many dangers of embracing a doctrine like Sola Scriptura.

 

[EricFilmer]

Comments?

Well, you certainly have your work cut out for you in this thread. I think you may find yourself overwhelmed in trying to respond to so many “comments”.

Miguel, I just wanted to make a comment on the side to say that I greatly appreciate you starting this thread, even though you probably expected an avalanche of Catholic posts to descend upon you. For what it’s worth, I highly respect the fact that you are willing to engage people on an objective scholarly discussion over the merits of Sola Scriptura.

In order to gain the fruits from a wide range of (name removed by moderator)ut, it is my sincere hope that fellow proponents of Sola Scriptura will lend their comments to this thread, and maybe also help you with the work load of responding to so much material. Like Chesster said, you have your work cut out for you. But I am currently debating with three other people in the CA Apologetics Forum who are adherents of Sola Scriptura, so hopefully they (and others) will eventually notice your thread topic and participate herein. As a matter-of-fact, I have already directly mentioned this to one of them and will make sure the other two know as well.

But if they leave you to “fight the good fight” all by yourself, then whereas you have greatly earned my respect, I won’t have much to say for them…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Well, you certainly have your work cut out for you in this thread. I think you may find yourself overwhelmed in trying to respond to so many “comments”.

You’re right. I didn’t expect dissertations for replies and doubt I’ll be able to do justice to the considerable argumentation behind them, but I’ll do what I can as time permits.

The flaw in SS is that no one has the authority to declare who is right in a dispute. Who has the power to resolve questions that arise from time to time and to whose decision are we to submit? How are Christians to know true dogmas of faith from false and correct precepts of morality? How do you stop endless disputes and controversies with no judge?

That’s a fair question. I don’t know, however, that we need a final arbiter on earth. Surely Jesus promised the Holy Spirit and he has given “some as teachers” etc. Would it be nice if there were something like an “oracle” that could say, “this here is the right interpretation, not that one over there”? Perhaps. But wishing there were one and there actually being one are two different things. One problem I have with Catholics is that they’re often so quick to say, “that’s just your interpretation” to us Protestants, but are so slow to question their own interpretations when it comes to establishing infallibility. My suspicion is that Catholics don’t really deduce infallibility; they just presuppose it. I don’t have a problem with the idea of presuppositions. (We all have them.) I’d just argue that inspired scripture is a better starting point than an an infallible interpreter.

In your list number 3 you cite 1 Cor. 4:6 and say, “he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle.” Why should we believe your interpretation over another?

I think you should believe what seems more reasonable to you–that’s about all you can ask anyone. There may very well be a better interpretation of 1 Cor 4:6 than the one I hold. But when I read the verse in context, and ask myself, what are the conditions for the possibility of exhorting the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written”? I have trouble imagining a person who would tell others to uphold this principle and at the same time believe in dogma like the Assumption of Mary, about which scripture says nothing as even Catholics admit.

If there is no other rule of faith then Scripture and private interpretation how do we ascertain truth when one’s interpretation is opposed to another? .

The same way any argument is settled–with the best use of reason supported by the facts. Even Catholics have to interpret Magisterial documents and often they disagree radically about what they mean (witness the split between the liberals and conservatives in your own communion with respect to how Vatican II ought to be read, especially Dei Verbum.)

You obviously think Rome can settle these matters. But how do you know Rome is infallible? What reasons do you offer to support this claim? (And please don’t start quoting Bible passages, because then you’d be guilty of having to use your reason to interpret them and then we could ask you, “Why ought we to accept your interpretation of those passages by which you deduce Rome’s infallibility?” Surely the answer can’t be because you’re infallible, right?