sola scriptura

[traillius]

Other than a SS advocate’s say so, there is no reason I am aware of, either biblically, or within the realm of logic, why I should entertain the possible veracity of sola scriptura. If someone has convincing arguments, I would like to hear them. You can cherry pick verses, but that would be the linguistic equivalent of saying " my name is mike because I say it is "

 

[k8e308]

Posting so I can subscribe to this thread. I’m very interested.

 

[k8e308]

I subscribed to this thread, because I was so interested in the reasoning behind SS, but no one ever answered. So “bump” and maybe someone will answer.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As I recall Scott Hahn’s conversion story, it was his inability to find justification for either sola scriptura or sola fides(?) that led him to the Catholic Church.

 

[PJD1987]

Sola Scriptura is one of the most popular subjects on this site. And I love it, because every advocate of it gets absolutely destroyed in debate, not that I love the downfall of others, but I love the fact that the Catholic Church has an unshakable foundation that cannot be overcome by anything, even cherry-picking verses.

With that said, I too shall subscribe to this for pure entertainment value.

 

[EricFilmer]

Other than a SS advocate’s say so, there is no reason I am aware of, either biblically, or within the realm of logic, why I should entertain the possible veracity of sola scriptura. If someone has convincing arguments, I would like to hear them. You can cherry pick verses, but that would be the linguistic equivalent of saying " my name is mike because I say it is "

Although I have not been on CAF for very long (only about eight months), it has been my experience that lots of people in this forum will denounce certain Catholic beliefs as erroneous because such beliefs violate Sola Scriptura, but very few are willing to defend the validity of Sola Scriptura itself.

An exception to this is Miguel Sastre who began a thread on this topic a couple of months ago. Being an evangelical Christian, it was his intention to support the validity of Sola Scriptura. Although I did not agree with his stance (I debated extensively against him), I appreciate the time and energy he put into that thread. But take a moment to glace through this thread and notice how few other proponents of Sola Scriptura joined in to support Miguel’s endeavor. There were a couple, but that is all (even though this was a very active thread discussion for about a month).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=515287

On other CAF threads at the time I interacted with three or four people who were denouncing certain Catholic beliefs because they “weren’t in the Bible.” When I pointed out that they were using Sola Scriptura and challenged them to prove its validity, they responded that they would not because it would be “off-topic.” So when Miguel happened to start his thread shortly afterward, I politely invited these people to participate in that thread so that they could defend Sola Scriptura “on-topic.” But my invitation was ignored, and they never participated. As the old saying goes, “All talk, no action.”

Traillius, I am glad that you started this thread and I will keep an eye on it. I will gladly contribute to it, challenging the validity of Sola Scriptura. Maybe this time around I will see more involvement from the Sola Scriptura adherents. Of course, you started this discussion over a week ago, and none of them has responded yet…

 

[mackbrislawn]

Other than a SS advocate’s say so, there is no reason I am aware of, either biblically, or within the realm of logic, why I should entertain the possible veracity of sola scriptura. If someone has convincing arguments, I would like to hear them. You can cherry pick verses, but that would be the linguistic equivalent of saying " my name is mike because I say it is "

Nope, there is no biblical nor logical reason to entertain sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura is simply an assertion, a stipulation, a postulate. An unproven assumption. It cannot be proven, it can only be accepted as an unproven axiom. When the reformers rejected the authority of the Church, they cast about for some other source of authority, and seized upon scripture. Of course, they didn’t think of the fact that the only reason they believed in the authority of scripture to begin with was because of the authority of the Church! This illogic the reformers ignored. Of course, sola scriptura advocates have never been accused of being logical.

Actually, modern liberal protestants have realized that illogic, and that is why they no longer believe in scripture, because they know that belief in scripture is just one more of those nasty Catholic traditions to get rid of!

(I try to be always charitable, but sometimes I allow myself to get catty.)

 

[JimG]

I have to confess that I have simply never taken sola scriptura very seriously. If Jesus had gotten the Apostles together at some point prior to the ascension and passed out bound and complete bibles with table of contents, and instructed them that everything they needed to know was to be found in that book, then I would have to consider it. But it’s quite obvious from both history and scripture that it didn’t happen that way. He first established the Church.

 

[pablope]

Nope, there is no biblical nor logical reason to entertain sola scriptura.
**
Sola scriptura is simply an assertion,** a stipulation, a postulate. An unproven assumption. It cannot be proven, it can only be accepted as an unproven axiom. When the reformers rejected the authority of the Church, they cast about for some other source of authority, and seized upon scripture. Of course, they didn’t think of the fact that the only reason they believed in the authority of scripture to begin with was because of the authority of the Church! This illogic the reformers ignored. Of course, sola scriptura advocates have never been accused of being logical.

(I try to be always charitable, but sometimes I allow myself to get catty.)

You are correct, SS is an assertion. I heard a talk about this a few months back. The speaker said that Luther never proved it, he just asserted it. And this was from a former Calvinist.

 

[mackbrislawn]

You are correct, SS is an assertion. I heard a talk about this a few months back. The speaker said that Luther never proved it, he just asserted it. And this was from a former Calvinist.

Very interesting.

So, they recognize that SS an unproven article of faith. But it’s true, they have to make that statement of faith, or give up the reason for their existence. And be Catholic. Unthinkable!

A necessary corollary to SS is the perspicuity of scripture–that scripture is clear and self-interpreting. This corollary is necessary in order to make SS workable. However, the perspicuity of scripture is contrary to scripture itself, to history, and to all experience. Amazingly, SS advocates cling to it desparately regardless of all contrary evidence.