Sola Scriptura

[KOC82]

I’ve been in the massive debate with a reformed protestant. I feel like I’ve been from one side of creation to the other, yet neither of us has changed our position. I feel like I’m under constant onslaught by the vast # of protestant resources out there. This one in Particular.

christiantruth.com/audiolectures.php

I’m especially speaking of the tracks 2 and 4. But the whole thing is unusually hard to deal with.

Now, I have searched the internet, for something that refutes this website. I’ve found Catholic Protestant debates, that were not thorough. I’ve seen longer ones, that I have to purchase to listen to. For some reason, I keep thinking I need more than my bible to defend the Church, and just doesn’t seem right. Although, they now use the Church Fathers against the Church. I’ve seen both sides of the argument, and the protestants bring up some hard to answer myself, or extremely hard to find an adequate rebuttal for.

If anyone can point me to some resources, I would be overjoyed to search them out. I feel like I’ve run out of scripture to refute with.

Thanks!

 

[MidnightSun12]

I would recommend giving us some examples of the types of protestant arguments that you are struggling with. In addition to CAF being a great resource in itself for fighting heresy, it might help to have some specific examples to jog people’s memory.

As a general resource, I recommend watching some of Micheal Vorris’ Vortex series. I have learned a lot about my own faith through his videos and he definitely puts out some pretty convincing arguments in defense of the Catholic faith:

youtube.com/watch?v=cbt-oic4hWY&feature=relmfu

 

[Hokomai]

I have never been able to accept sola scriptura as logical, even within itself. The first issue is ‘what do we mean by scripture’? We mean a group of writings accepted by some Christians in the early years of the Church. Some Christians did not accept these, and some accepted others. Some writings, such as works of Paul to which he himself refers, are lost, and not included. The scriptures eventually accepted contradict each other on many points. Secondly, these scriptures are translations of originals, now lost. The original, ‘inspired’ scriptures are lost. Thirdly, years of sola scriptura belief have clearly established that scripture does not in fact provide a useful guide, as people draw thousands of different conclusions from it. These points to not establish the authority of the Church, but they do indicate why logic requires something other than scripture, since if you believe in God, you must assume God provided a useful guide, and scripture alone is demonstrable not such a guide.

 

[Polycarp1]

I’ve been in the massive debate with a reformed protestant. I feel like I’ve been from one side of creation to the other, yet neither of us has changed our position. I feel like I’m under constant onslaught by the vast # of protestant resources out there. This one in Particular.

christiantruth.com/audiolectures.php

I’m especially speaking of the tracks 2 and 4. But the whole thing is unusually hard to deal with.

Now, I have searched the internet, for something that refutes this website. I’ve found Catholic Protestant debates, that were not thorough. I’ve seen longer ones, that I have to purchase to listen to. For some reason, I keep thinking I need more than my bible to defend the Church, and just doesn’t seem right. Although, they now use the Church Fathers against the Church. I’ve seen both sides of the argument, and the protestants bring up some hard to answer myself, or extremely hard to find an adequate rebuttal for.

If anyone can point me to some resources, I would be overjoyed to search them out. I feel like I’ve run out of scripture to refute with.

Thanks!

archive.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Let us start with the question, “What is the pillar and foundation of truth?” If we believe that the Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, we can look to 1 Tim 3:15 where we find that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Most non-Catholic Christians believe that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. This was one of Martin Luther’s claims when he broke away from the Catholic Church, i.e., the claim of “Sola Scriptura.” Catholics have, however, always accepted the teaching authority of the Church together with the Bible as the basis for our Faith.

        SO HOW DID CATHOLICS ARRIVE AT THIS POSITION?

Well they didn’t actually arrive at it, they simply lived it out since the very inception of the Church. Maybe a brief historical perspective will be helpful in understanding this.

The New Testament books were not really put together as a completed Bible until approximately 400 AD. So we know that the earliest Christians did not have access to the written word. We also know that until the invention of the printing press in the 1450’s, the Bible was not accessible to most people due to the laborious task of making copies by hand. It wasn’t even until relatively recently that faithful Christians were educated enough to be able to read the Bible!

HOW WAS THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TRANSMITTED TO BELIEVERS DURING
THIS PERIOD OF TIME WHEN ACCESS TO THE BIBLE WAS QUITE LIMITED?

The answer is that virtually all of the teaching during this time was done by oral instruction relying on the teaching authority of the Church for the proper interpretation of the Scriptures and for the passing on of Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Polycarp1]

The Bible itself is quite clear regarding the significance of tradition (see John 21:25, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2). Since these scripture references, along with many others, refer to both tradition and the spoken word, they MUST be integrated into the Christian understanding of revelation. Since the Word of God can not contradict itself, the only choice we have as Bible believing Christians is to accept tradition as well as scripture as our source of faith

Protestants and Sola Scriptura Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true? It’s not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John’s Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a “Bible Christian” know the Bible is the Word of God?If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the
Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It’s doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the “Shepherd” of Hermas, St. Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.Luther’s real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he
called “an epistle of straw,” because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by “faith alone” apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority–sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is “useful” (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."Newman also wrote: “It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself…” And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."St. Augustine, usually Luther’s guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: “But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel.”

 

[KOC82]

I think one of the main arguments for Sola Scriptura, is the fact that Scripture itself declares itself to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Whereas, nowhere that I have found that the sacred scripture declares that sacred tradition is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Which makes me think about the Jewish Talmud. Are those the oral traditions of men that Jesus was rebuking? The Jewish sacred tradition.

I would perhaps benefit from citations from the apocrypha that claim that their writings are inspired by God.

2 tim 3:"[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (douay rheims)

This passage is used by protestants, and the argument is that Scripture is all one needs to be perfect. As We are called to be “perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.”

Sola Scriptura: within scripture these claims are made about scripture.

it is pure, perfect, sure, eternal, forever settled in heaven, gives wisdom unto salvation, a guide, a fire, a seed, truth, sanctify, causes spiritual growth, makes the wise simple, a guide, a hammer, a lamp to our feet, heals, restrains from sin, spiritual food, infallible, defeats satan, equips for every good work, god breathed, authoritative, sword of the spirit, a light to our path, makes reverence for God, regenerates, searches the heart, and mind, is living and active, gives knowledge of God, illuminates, makes free, converts the soul, inerrant, produces life, refutes error, is Holy, and is the word of the Living God.

There main argument is: that nowhere in scripture does scripture proclaim that tradition is any of these things, so how can they be on the same level as scripture?

 

[Polycarp1]

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt

philvaz.com/apologetics/num6.htm

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

justforcatholics.org/a74.htm

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp (10 step refutation of Sola Scriptura)

catholic-pages.com/dir/sola_scriptura.asp

bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-catechism-class-for-catholics-and-orthodox.htm

bible.ca/sola-scriptura.htm

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm

cuf.org/FileDownloads/sola.pdf

 

[pablope]

I’ve been in the massive debate with a reformed protestant. I feel like I’ve been from one side of creation to the other, yet neither of us has changed our position. I feel like I’m under constant onslaught by the vast # of protestant resources out there. This one in Particular.

christiantruth.com/audiolectures.php

I’m especially speaking of the tracks 2 and 4. But the whole thing is unusually hard to deal with.

Now, I have searched the internet, for something that refutes this website. I’ve found Catholic Protestant debates, that were not thorough. I’ve seen longer ones, that I have to purchase to listen to. For some reason, I keep thinking I need more than my bible to defend the Church, and just doesn’t seem right. Although, they now use the Church Fathers against the Church. I’ve seen both sides of the argument, and the protestants bring up some hard to answer myself, or extremely hard to find an adequate rebuttal for.

If anyone can point me to some resources, I would be overjoyed to search them out. I feel like I’ve run out of scripture to refute with.

Thanks!

Try this site…he has debated on SS before too…philvaz.com/apologetics/apolog.htm

 

[pablope]

I think one of the main arguments for Sola Scriptura, is the fact that Scripture itself declares itself to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Whereas, nowhere that I have found that the sacred scripture declares that sacred tradition is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Which makes me think about the Jewish Talmud. Are those the oral traditions of men that Jesus was rebuking? The Jewish sacred tradition.

I would perhaps benefit from citations from the apocrypha that claim that their writings are inspired by God.

2 tim 3:"[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (douay rheims)

This passage is used by protestants, and the argument is that Scripture is all one needs to be perfect. As We are called to be “perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.”

Sola Scriptura: within scripture these claims are made about scripture.

it is pure, perfect, sure, eternal, forever settled in heaven, gives wisdom unto salvation, a guide, a fire, a seed, truth, sanctify, causes spiritual growth, makes the wise simple, a guide, a hammer, a lamp to our feet, heals, restrains from sin, spiritual food, infallible, defeats satan, equips for every good work, god breathed, authoritative, sword of the spirit, a light to our path, makes reverence for God, regenerates, searches the heart, and mind, is living and active, gives knowledge of God, illuminates, makes free, converts the soul, inerrant, produces life, refutes error, is Holy, and is the word of the Living God.

There main argument is: that nowhere in scripture does scripture proclaim that tradition is any of these things, so how can they be on the same level as scripture?

This is the standard protestant proof text:

2 tim 3:"[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (douay rheims)

But protestants forget the previous verses…

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

V14 speaks of oral instruction…and knowing and trusting your teacher…so it is not scripture alone…it is oral also.

V16 says “all”, but it does not say only.

Besides, there was no bible when this was written…to Scripture referred in this passage refers to the Septuagint…now the Catholic OT.

On their other points or arguments…always ask for chapter and verse.

 

[ErricFiggy]

Just to add to what everyone is saying: if he’s trying to prove Sola Scriptura, why is he using quotes from the Early Church Fathers? He should be able to prove it from the Bible alone, shouldn’t he?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Here is a whole list of bible verses dealing with Sola Scriptura: scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

For Church Fathers, I recommend The Fathers Know Best, by Jimmy Akin.

I think one of the main arguments for Sola Scriptura, is the fact that Scripture itself declares itself to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Whereas, nowhere that I have found that the sacred scripture declares that sacred tradition is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Lots of things claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, that guy in Texas who fed his followers poisoned cool-aid. The mere fact that it says that it is inspired does not even imply that it is, let alone that nothing else is.

Which makes me think about the Jewish Talmud. Are those the oral traditions of men that Jesus was rebuking? The Jewish sacred tradition.

You will not often find Jesus rubuking (clarifying and elucidating, yes, overturning, no) Jews over matters of doctrine (I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it sort of thing).

And second, if He only rebuked some traditions (which is undeniably true) and if all of those traditions were traditions of men (also undeniably true, He certainly did not rebuke Traditions of God), then at worst this means that there are some traditions that are good and some that are bad. But using this to argue that Catholic Traditions are somehow of men, and in particular, bad traditions of men is circular - it assumes that everything not in the bible is man made to show that all of those things not in the bible should be discarded… because they’re man made.

2 tim 3:"[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (douay rheims)

This passage is used by protestants, and the argument is that Scripture is all one needs to be perfect. As We are called to be “perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.”

Don’t forget “But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;” which is just a few verse earlier.

I’ve never understood this argument. The key word, the verb, the whole thing on which the argument turns, is the “profitable”.

But first: Timothy was referring to what he considered scripture. This would be the old testament. The new had yet to be compiled.

It is probably reasonable to extend this to other scripture as well (though you could argue that this is an extra-biblical claim in itself, but anyway). And then the statement clearly says “Scripture is helpful.” To which the Catholic response is “Duh”.

The problem here is that the word profitable is in no way the same way as the word sufficient. I tell my students that coming to class will help them pass (it is a profitable use of their time). And it is. And for the most part, if they don’t come, they fail. But the ones that do come are not guaranteed to pass. There is more also.

Sola Scriptura: within scripture these claims are made about scripture.

it is pure, perfect, sure, eternal, forever settled in heaven, gives wisdom unto salvation, a guide, a fire, a seed, truth, sanctify, causes spiritual growth, makes the wise simple, a guide, a hammer, a lamp to our feet, heals, restrains from sin, spiritual food, infallible, defeats satan, equips for every good work, god breathed, authoritative, sword of the spirit, a light to our path, makes reverence for God, regenerates, searches the heart, and mind, is living and active, gives knowledge of God, illuminates, makes free, converts the soul, inerrant, produces life, refutes error, is Holy, and is the word of the Living God.

So it’s really awesome. Check.

There main argument is: that nowhere in scripture does scripture proclaim that tradition is any of these things, so how can they be on the same level as scripture?

First, this isn’t quiet true. But even if it were, this is only a problem if you start out assuming Sola Scriptura (that is, “the bible doesn’t say to follow Tradition” - which it does - would only be a problem if the bible was already known to say everything). But this makes no sense, because to have believed Sola Scriptura from the start, you’d have had to have had some Scriptura from the start. And we didn’t.

And none of this even begins to deal with the fact that Sola Scriptura falls flat on its face. It just doesn’t work - the claim that one can arrive at all the truth necessary for salvation by individually reading scripture with a sincere open heart or whatever fails by counter example: thousands of people have read scripture with a sincere heart and cannot even agree whether or not Hell exists, much less how to avoid going there.

 

[fred_conty]

There is so much good help here for you that I hesitate to add any more for fear of over loading you. However if I may make a suggestion. On this point Stephen Ray is one of the best because of the way he explains this error from an evangelical point of view. His book,
Crossing the Tiber, is just great. So if you can get your hands on that, you will appreciate his answer to this and other issues. He is so good on clearity.

Good luck.

 

[onemangang]

I’ve been in the massive debate with a reformed protestant. I feel like I’ve been from one side of creation to the other, yet neither of us has changed our position. I feel like I’m under constant onslaught by the vast # of protestant resources out there. This one in Particular.

christiantruth.com/audiolectures.php

I’m especially speaking of the tracks 2 and 4. But the whole thing is unusually hard to deal with.

Now, I have searched the internet, for something that refutes this website. I’ve found Catholic Protestant debates, that were not thorough. I’ve seen longer ones, that I have to purchase to listen to. For some reason, I keep thinking I need more than my bible to defend the Church, and just doesn’t seem right. Although, they now use the Church Fathers against the Church. I’ve seen both sides of the argument, and the protestants bring up some hard to answer myself, or extremely hard to find an adequate rebuttal for.

If anyone can point me to some resources, I would be overjoyed to search them out. I feel like I’ve run out of scripture to refute with.

Thanks!

I think you may find some answers here

This is currently being debated in non-catholic religions

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=660248

Peace and Love in Christ!

 

[EricFilmer]

…Although, they now use the Church Fathers against the Church.

if he’s trying to prove Sola Scriptura, why is he using quotes from the Early Church Fathers? He should be able to prove it from the Bible alone, shouldn’t he?

ErricFiggy has hit the nail on the head. Every time I see people trying to prove the validity of Sola Scriptura they always end up resorting to something other than Scripture for the simple fact that it’s not in the Bible. In this case, it seems that they are trying to use Patristics (i.e., the writings of the ECFs) to make their case. Therefore, just remind them that if they need the ECFs to validate Sola Scriptura then the principle in question is not “Bible Alone” but rather “Bible & Patristics Alone”. And as soon as they acknowledge the credibility of the ECFs, that opens up a whole “can of worms” for them!

If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine then it ought to be described in the Bible with the same clarity its adherents give it, but such a biblical description does not exist. In order to make their case, they post a couple of Scripture verses which don’t actually teach Sola Scriptura, and then make all kinds of extra-biblical extrapolations to make these verses say what they want them to say. In these cases, the principle at hand is not truly “Bible Alone” but “Bible and Personal Interpretation Alone”.

 

[ChrisCath]

This is the standard protestant proof text:

2 tim 3:"[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (douay rheims)

As I understand it, the “perfect” in 2 Tm 3:17 means “fit” or “suitable,” as in a hammer is perfect for driving nails. It does not mean moral or spiritual perfection (there are different Greek words for those types of perfection). Nor does it mean that the result of such suitability is perfect either, just as every nail driven by the aforementioned hammer is unlikely to be perfectly driven. It just means the cleric so-trained (Timothy, the “man of God”) is well-equipped for his responsibilities.

 

[ChrisCath]

I just read over on the wikipedia article on SS:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
that the Westminster Confession admits that SS is not to be found in the bible.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine that is not, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 “expressly set down in scripture”.

It is an implied truth or doctrine based on the Protestant necessity of having something other than the Church be an infallible rule of faith. That is a key reason why biblical proofs of SS never quite reach critical mass.

 

[lucklove]

http://www.discounthotelbook.com

 

[KOC82]

As I understand it, the “perfect” in 2 Tm 3:17 means “fit” or “suitable,” as in a hammer is perfect for driving nails. It does not mean moral or spiritual perfection (there are different Greek words for those types of perfection). Nor does it mean that the result of such suitability is perfect either, just as every nail driven by the aforementioned hammer is unlikely to be perfectly driven. It just means the cleric so-trained (Timothy, the “man of God”) is well-equipped for his responsibilities.

Thanks for the information. I attempted to sort through the Greek texts to find the actual Greek word, but I’m not a Greek scholar, so I was unable on my first attempt to locate the actual word. I used GreekNewTestament.com If anyone has a better website that might have the definitions of actual words it might help my argument. Thanks for the post!

 

[KOC82]

There is so much good help here for you that I hesitate to add any more for fear of over loading you. However if I may make a suggestion. On this point Stephen Ray is one of the best because of the way he explains this error from an evangelical point of view. His book,
Crossing the Tiber, is just great. So if you can get your hands on that, you will appreciate his answer to this and other issues. He is so good on clearity.

Good luck.

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve been through many of these websites already, thats what brought me to create this post in the first place. Although, some that are posted are new. I am thankful for all the help. It is more specifically, christiantruth.com/audio/4.mp3 that gives me the most trouble. I am also disappointed in the lack of free in-depth apologies on the internet, for us poorer people. It’s tough living in the south, were 2% Catholic here, and finding a good source of books in the library is another difficult task. Anyways, thanks again any help is appreciated.

 

[KOC82]

Just to add to what everyone is saying: if he’s trying to prove Sola Scriptura, why is he using quotes from the Early Church Fathers? He should be able to prove it from the Bible alone, shouldn’t he?

Well, I don’t know if you have ever debated with a reformed protestant, an ex-Catholic reformed protestant at that. But they believe in the Eucharist, of course they don’t believe it takes the word of a priest, to consecrate a host. because at the best, that’s implicit in scripture. You can’t really parallel anything with the OT like the priesthood, because Christ fulfilled the Law, and the OT is done, “Finished.” They believe in Sola Scriptura, and that the Church Fathers taught Sola Scriptura. They believe that the original Church ended with the beginning of Papal Supremacy, when the Bishop of Rome was no longer a first among equals. But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.