Sola Scriptura

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Can you please provide evidence from Scripture and Tradition that sola scriptura is false. Thank you.

 

[I_Leatherman]

SS - It means, I think, that you can only use Scripture* as the sole authority.
But Scripture does not say that Scripture is the sole authority.
So whose idea was that?

*Scripture being just the written Sacred Tradition stuff, not the oral Sacred Traditions of the jews and early Christians]

 

[thistle]

Hi everyone. Can you please provide evidence from Scripture and Tradition that sola scriptura is false. Thank you.

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[Enoch]

Hope this helps

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Sacred Scripture is to be the only authority for Christian teaching. Therefore, believing sola scriptura directly contradicts “bible alone” theology its self. However, the Bible does have a lot to say regarding the truth about authority and teaching.

Scripture tells us that Christ founded a Church, not a book, with divine authority to govern in His name. Here are just a few examples:

Matthew 16
13: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
14: And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15: He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16: Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20: Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Matthew 18
18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 10
16: And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

The Bible also tells us to follow Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture:

2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

2 Thess 3:6 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact it tells us that we need more than the Bible alone. The Bible confirms that we must also hold fast to oral tradition, the preached word of God:

2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Jn 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

1 Cointh 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

1 Peter 1:25: but the word of the Lord abides for ever." That word is the good news which was preached to you.

In fact, St. Peter goes so far as to say that Sacred Scripture can be difficult to interpret, strongly implying that we need an authoritative interpreter:

2 Peter
15: And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Finally, Paul tells us that it is the Church that is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”.

1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[Holly3278]

Ah okay. I am now convinced that sola scriptura is false. Thank you!

 

[VociMike]

Ah okay. I am now convinced that sola scriptura is false. Thank you!

It helps a lot to understand that the real motivation behind the invented idea of sola scriptura was (and is) to get out from under the authority of the Church. The God-given authority of the Church, I should add.

 

[neophyte]

Hi everyone. Can you please provide evidence from Scripture and Tradition that sola scriptura is false. Thank you.

Perhaps you could provide evidence that it’s true?

 

[Contarini]

Hi everyone. Can you please provide evidence from Scripture and Tradition that sola scriptura is false. Thank you.

Which version of sola scriptura?

Here is the Anglican version:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

       XXI. **Of the Authority of General Councils.          **

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Article 21 is not accepted in the U.S. Episcopal Church, and I am certainly not going to defend the first sentence of the article. I would defend the rest of Article 21 insofar as “General Councils” would include such assemblies as the “Robber Synod” of Ephesus. Certainly there have been Councils (the first four in the traditional numbering for sure, and maybe the first seven) which have not erred in matters of faith–but simply gathering a council of bishops representing the whole Church (even if it has papal approval) does not ensure that it will make right decisions.

The key article, of course, is Article 6. I don’t really care whether you call this “sola scriptura” or not. As far as I’m concerned most Catholic arguments against “sola scriptura” are straw-man arguments.

Edwin

 

[Aramis]

Anglicanism as evidenced by your own posts is not sola scriptorum, merely prima scriptorum, or Scripture First.

 

[Holly3278]

Perhaps you could provide evidence that it’s true?

I am not here to debate but to learn. I have come back to Catholicism recently and am trying to eliminate my doubts.

 

[Contarini]

Anglicanism as evidenced by your own posts is not sola scriptorum, merely prima scriptorum, or Scripture First.

So what would be a Protestant denomination that holds Sola Scriptura, and what official doctrinal statement states it?

What I’m trying to get at is that “pure” Sola Scriptura is extremely rare–precisely because it’s just as silly as Catholic apologists say it is. So you should stop arguing against this abstract “sola Scriptura” and concentrate on the actual teachings of specific Protestant groups.

Edwin

 

[obedient2truth]

Dear Holly3278,

God bless you for your openness to learn your Catholic faith. Please keep in mind; it is very hard to discover the truth without searching. And 1,000 questions do not equal one doubt. I can tell you when I was a lukewarm Catholic I wanted to learn the true Church teachings, not the goody goody watered down version I got in religion class in the late 60s and 70s. If I was supposed to believe XYZ, I wanted to know why. The more I learned, the more I wanted to learn. I learned that the Truth that is the true Church founded by Christ is a beautiful thing and the more obedient I was to its teaching the happier I became. I highly recommend reading any of the Surprised by Truth by Patrick Madrid, Jesus, Peter & the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hessand and Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God by Scott Hahn & Leon Suprenant.

God bless you!

 

[obedient2truth]

So what would be a Protestant denomination that holds Sola Scriptura, and what official doctrinal statement states it?

What I’m trying to get at is that “pure” Sola Scriptura is extremely rare–precisely because it’s just as silly as Catholic apologists say it is. So you should stop arguing against this abstract “sola Scriptura” and concentrate on the actual teachings of specific Protestant groups.

Edwin

That is the whole point. Each “Protestant group” has thier own version of what scripture means. They can’t come to an agreement on simple scripture teachings, such as Baptism…infant or not.

 

[Aaron_I]

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

I wonder if the Anglicans fully appreciate how many New Testament books had doubts about their authenticity. No doubt they added in that bolded part to avoid the deuterocanon, but the way it’s worded eliminates Revelations, as well as Hebrews and many other of the epistles.

 

[jemfinch]

The key article, of course, is Article 6. I don’t really care whether you call this “sola scriptura” or not. As far as I’m concerned most Catholic arguments against “sola scriptura” are straw-man arguments.

It does still seem to me that Article 6 would fall to the same arguments that we use against our straw men, though. For instance, how can you prove article 6 from Scripture alone?

(Not trying to be cantankerous, just curious…)

Jeremy

 

[Janet_S]

I am not here to debate but to learn. I have come back to Catholicism recently and am trying to eliminate my doubts.

When did you come back to the Catholic faith? Yesterday you said you were Fundamental Baptist. That’s not Catholic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2079488&postcount=427

Are you playing games, or did you have an overnight Epiphany?

Also, I saw you post somewhere else (though it’s not there anymore) that you came to CAF, became a Catholic because of what you learned here, left the CC, and were coming back now to try to convince people they should leave the Church too.

My guess is that you are neither Baptist or Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

It does still seem to me that Article 6 would fall to the same arguments that we use against our straw men, though. For instance, how can you prove article 6 from Scripture alone?

I can’t. But I do not claim that Article 6 is necessary for salvation. It is a reasonable standard that recognizes what we know to be of divine authority (the 66-book canon of Scripture) while not excluding other sources of authority (including the deuterocanonical books).

The only sound argument for any form of “sola scriptura” is a negative one: we know that God’s Word is authoritative and mere human traditions are not. We also know (mostly because of the historic witness of the Church) that the 66 books of the “Protestant” canon are God’s Word. There is less certainty about extra-Scriptural tradition or about the deuterocanonicals. We have frequent statements from the Church Fathers to the effect that Scripture has a greater authority than any council or theologian, and that Scripture should be appealed to in order to solve controversies about the Faith. So we can say with certainty that anything that contradicts Scripture cannot be true, and we can have a reasonable doubt about anything not found in the undisputed books of Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That is the whole point. Each “Protestant group” has thier own version of what scripture means. They can’t come to an agreement on simple scripture teachings, such as Baptism…infant or not.

Why is that an argument against any particular Protestant group? Why is it an argument against Anglicans that we don’t agree with the Baptists, but not against Catholics that *you *don’t agree with the Baptists?

Protestants who claim that sola scriptura is a formula that will lead to a unified body of doctrine if correctly followed are just plain silly, and you’re quite right to refute them. But that does not prove Catholicism to be true, or that all forms of Protestantism are false.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I wonder if the Anglicans fully appreciate how many New Testament books had doubts about their authenticity.

That’s a good question given that the framers of the Articles surely knew about the contemporary debates to that effect. However, I don’t think this phrase is any more problematic than Trent’s “universal consent of the Fathers.” All sides in the Reformation debates tended to make overly bold claims about the consensus on which their positions rested–in the end this basically means “we’re convinced that the historic consensus is strong enough to support X and not Y,” and that’s a reasonable claim even if it’s worded too strongly.

I think it’s fair to say that there was a stronger consensus about the NT canon than about the OT in the early Church.

Edwin

 

[Janet_S]

Ken Hensley, a former Baptist minister, has a set of CD’s on the subject of Sola Scriptura. You can order it from here:
saintjoemp3.com/servlet/Detail?no=32

His point was that sola Scriptura was not one belief; it was a complex of beliefs. He reduced sola Scriptura to these main points:

1. Only those things found within the pages of Scripture are binding on the conscience of the Christian.
2. The Bible is materially sufficient (contains all things necessary for a Christian to believe).
3. The Bible is formally sufficient (the Bible clearly explains itself and needs no infallible interpretor).
4. The Church has authority, but it is does not have infallible authority, and therefore, cannot bind the conscience of the Christian.
5. Individual Christians have an absolute right to private interpretation when they read Scripture since the Bible alone can bind the Christian conscience.