Sola Scriptura - what do you think is the BEST argument?

[Kostja]

Originally Posted by cjaubert
We have all heard many arguments against the Protestant concept of Sola Scripura. What do you think is the one, single, best argument against the concept and in favor of the Catholic position

ST Paul says Romans 3:28:" For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law".

Here we hear, what St Paul says “a man is justified by faith” and so I think, this his word no one can repeal and therefore “single, best argument against the concept” not can be exist.

Kostja

 

[ceasar]

DeFide:

Are you reading Sola Scriptura into the phrase “rightly dividing the word of truth”? If so, that seems like quite a reach. Could you clarify?

Also, it’s impossible to study the inspired Scriptures yourself. The originals are all gone. See reason #13 here:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

i believe anyone can interpret scripture correctly…i don’t believe it is up to certain individuals that have a divine inspiration to interpret…i would need scripture to prove that…god inspired the bible for man to follow it…if man has to rely on another man to follow scripture then that is wrong in my opinion…i believe we all have the ability…just need to apply ourselves and study it out…as far as “all the originals are gone” the books of the torah are correctly written in the our books as they were found on the dead sea scrolls written thousands of years ago…and there is thousand year old texts of the new testament that indicate the bible is correctly written in the modern text…i think god is bigger than that…lol…you think god would inspire a man to write scripture for mankind to follow and not make sure that those in the later years to receive it…lol…one thing satan tries to do is discredit the bible in any way he can…cause he knows that the truth is there…and the truth is more powerful than he is…so you can interpret scriptures its not impossible…

Ceasar

 

[vern_humphrey]

ceasar:

i believe anyone can interpret scripture correctly…i don’t believe it is up to certain individuals that have a divine inspiration to interpret…i would need scripture to prove that…god inspired the bible for man to follow it…if man has to rely on another man to follow scripture then that is wrong in my opinion…

So how do you explain the fact that the Catholic Church has taught a consistant message for 2,000 years, but Protestantism has fragmented and broken into some 33,000 different sects (in the US alone) in just a quarter of that time?

 

[Philthy]

ceasar:

i believe anyone can interpret scripture correctly

Do you have anything behind this belief other than your keyboard? Did you mean to exclude the possibility that “anyone can interpret scripture INCORRECTLY” with your statement? It doesn’t exclude that possibility at all, and history has leaned toward a demonstration of the latter. Do you get the proper interpretation the first time you reach a conclusion or not? How do you ever know when you have arrived at the “final, correct” interpretation.

ceasar:

…i don’t believe it is up to certain individuals that have a divine inspiration to interpret…

Who cares about opinions? I mean, come on, substantiate your claim or its worthless.

ceasar:

i would need scripture to prove that…god inspired the bible for man to follow it…if man has to rely on another man to follow scripture then that is wrong in my opinion

Where do you think Scripture came from? God? I hate to break this to you, but Scriptue(NT) came from men and even they didn’t bother to tell us it was Scripture! The Catholic church had to do it. That is, we had to rely on “other men” to supply us with Scripture.

ceasar:

…i believe we all have the ability…just need to apply ourselves and study it out…

You must not know any Church history. This is exactly what well meaning Protestants have been doing for 500 years - studying the Scriptures free of the constraints of the teaching magisterium of the Church. Do you think they have all finally arrived at the same interpretation? Think again. Sola scriptura has produced more interpretations of Scripture in as many years and it keeps growing.
Don’t get me wrong - reading Scripture is good and important, and there is much that you can correctly interpret. The problem is that without some reference point (the Church) you don’t really know that you have reached the proper interpretation. The Church is there to tell you, fo example, “YES, baptize your newborn” because Scipture is vague on the topic. There are so many ambiguities from Scripture. Scripture is not the “pillar and foundation of Truth”, the Church is.

ceasar:

as far as “all the originals are gone” the books of the torah are correctly written in the our books as they were found on the dead sea scrolls written thousands of years ago…and there is thousand year old texts of the new testament that indicate the bible is correctly written in the modern text

Thank you - now you are supporting your “opinion” with objective fact so we know where you got your opinion. Much better…

ceasar:

…i think god is bigger than that…lol…you think god would inspire a man to write scripture for mankind to follow and not make sure that those in the later years to receive it…lol…

I guess we’ll never know since Scripture didn’t bother to tell us! Jesus never even hinted that there would be a NT or what would be in it or anything like that.

ceasar:

one thing satan tries to do is discredit the bible in any way he can…cause he knows that the truth is there…and the truth is more powerful than he is…so you can interpret scriptures its not impossible…

Satan doesn’t worry about discrediting Scripture, he knows that our pride will take care of that by itself. Well see much of what we want to see in Scripture and twist it “to (our) own destruction” as Scripture states, all the while not even realizing what we’re doing. Why don’t take some time to read the writings of the faithful martyrs and saints who have gone before us? Are their opinions irrelevent? Might I suggest the first generation after the Apostles? For example, read some of Ignatious - he was a companion of John (you know the guy who wrote the Gospel of John) and had a few things to say about the Faith before he was martyred. In addition, I suggest you write down your expectations of what they will say on topics such as:
baptism of infants, necessity of baptism, sacraments in general, Lords supper, priesthood, confession to a priest, etc? Then you can compare notes and see how wrong they were
Honestly, even good Christians still have a sin nature and cannot be trusted to interpret Scripture by themselves

Blessings

PHil

 

[DeFide]

ceasar:

i believe anyone can interpret scripture correctly…i don’t believe it is up to certain individuals that have a divine inspiration to interpret…i would need scripture to prove that…god inspired the bible for man to follow it…if man has to rely on another man to follow scripture then that is wrong in my opinion…i believe we all have the ability…just need to apply ourselves and study it out…as far as “all the originals are gone” the books of the torah are correctly written in the our books as they were found on the dead sea scrolls written thousands of years ago…and there is thousand year old texts of the new testament that indicate the bible is correctly written in the modern text…i think god is bigger than that…lol…you think god would inspire a man to write scripture for mankind to follow and not make sure that those in the later years to receive it…lol…one thing satan tries to do is discredit the bible in any way he can…cause he knows that the truth is there…and the truth is more powerful than he is…so you can interpret scriptures its not impossible…

Ceasar

See? You just admitted that you need other people to study scriptures since all the inspired originals are gone. You have to trust the say-so of the Catholic Church that the Scriptures are not corrupt as well as which translations are valid and which of the thousands of textual variances in the uninspired copies (or copies of copies) are valid and which are copyist mistakes or errors. One word, or even one letter can make a big difference!

Like it or not, you have to trust the Church. See reason #14 for details:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

 

[jburgherr]

To me, the fact that Christianity not only remained viable early on, but flourished in the years before the Gospels were written, is a statement that Oral Tradition was important from Pentecost on. Even after the Gospels were penned, you just didn’t take the original scrolls of the Gospels down to the neighborhood Kinko’s to make copies for the masses!

Not many copies of the individual Gospels existed for many (probably hundreds of) years after their writing. I would dare say that few “Christian Churches” owned there own copy of the books contained in what is now known as the New Testiment. Early Christians were taught largely by memorized verse. Again, Christianity flourished, by the protection of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of oral tradition.

If Christ meant for only the written form of His Holy Word to be taught, he would have been much better served to have nothing but trained scribes follow him around all of Judea. Instead he chose to teach the twelve disciples, most of who were simple tradesmen, with parable and analogy.

 

[jburgherr]

To me, the fact that Christianity not only remained viable early on, but flourished in the years before the Gospels were written, is a statement that Oral Tradition was important from Pentecost on. Even after the Gospels were penned, you just didn’t take the original scrolls of the Gospels down to the neighborhood Kinko’s to make copies for the masses!

Not many copies of the individual Gospels existed for many (probably hundreds of) years after their writing. I would dare say that few “Christian Churches” owned there own copy of the books contained in what is now known as the New Testiment. Early Christians were taught largely by memorized verse. Again, Christianity flourished, by the protection of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of oral tradition.

If Christ meant for only the written form of His Holy Word to be taught, he would have been much better served to have nothing but trained scribes follow him around all of Judea. Instead he chose to teach the twelve disciples, most of who were simple tradesmen, with parable and analogy.

 

[pnewton]

For me it was the self-contradiction inherent in sola-scriptura. No where in the Bible is this doctrine taught. Anyone who adheres to it must believe at least one doctrine that is not taught anywhere in scripture, that of sola scriptura. Therefore no one can truly be sola scriptura.