V
VociMike
Guest
Just to pick one example, why do some people who claim sola scriptura reject the Trinity as not being found in scripture?
- Status
K
kaycee
Guest
2 Pet 3:15 Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
V
VociMike
Guest
So one who believes in sola scriptura believes that all people who do not believe exactly what he believes are ignorant or unstable?
If it’s just ignorance, how does one cure it? Just by studying harder? As the scripture says, these things are hard to understand. For that matter, how do you know it is not you who is ignorant? How do you know that you will not have a revelation in the future where you understand that the Trinity is not found in the bible?
J
jemfinch
Guest
That’s certainly the case. That’s one of the reasons I rejected Sola Scriptura: it does not comply with Scripture.
That’s certainly not the case. We don’t fall in line with your interpretation of Scripture, but since your interpretation is neither ancient nor authoritative, there is no reason the Church should abide by it.
The only agenda the Catholic Church has is preserving the faith once for all delivered to the saints in full, and guarding it against corruption. That’s one of the reasons it rejects Sola Scriptura.
Such thoughts are best left unsaid until you can fully defend them, otherwise they’re just slanderous.
Because we can cite Scripture right back at you
People seem to conveniently forget that a “man of God” is not just any male Christian, but a man in authority, possessing an office, such as Paul, Timothy, and Titus. 2 Timothy 3:17 no more argues that Scripture is sufficient to make a man of God than to say “dessert makes a meal perfect” argues that dessert is sufficient to make a meal.I have heard verse 16 argued as being a proof for rejection of sola scriptura (saying it is merely profitable)…BUT…they did not read all the way to the end of the chapter…verse 17 shows us the glorious sufficiency!
Jeremy
K
kaycee
Guest
Certainly not, I think your understanding of what is meant by Sola Scriptura is not clear.
Scripture is perfect and the only standard of spiritual truth, revealing all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That – no more, no less – is what sola Scriptura means.
In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity
Sola Scriptura does not mean lockstep belief down to tiny details.
D
dawid
Guest
The books of the both the Old and New Testament are derived from tradition. These books were not dictated as the minutes of a meeting are, only after the events are they written dawn. Thus not all is in ink on paper! As in Judaism and Catholiscism, much is in liturgy and catechism among others. The Church is a living system - the Body of Christ on earth, with a broad understanding of our faith.
V
VociMike
Guest
So why did you quote me the scripture about being ignorant or unstable, if it didn’t apply? I guess I still need to know why sola scriptura produces people who e.g. deny the Trinity.
And what is this about essentials now? Is there a list of essentials clearly found in scripture? And why should scripture not teach “non-essentials” clearly as well?
C
chet
Guest
Ignatius of AntiochLinks for the reformed definition and defense of Sola Scriptura.
mbrem.com/bible/sufficn.htm
the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html
faithtacoma.org/sermons/Romancath/RC.03.html
gracesermons.com/robbeeee/tim2.html
justforcatholics.org/a176.htm
bereanbeacon.org/articles/certainty_written_word.htm
Watch the flames I get now.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
2 Timothy 3:17, as your own signature illustrates, does not say that scripture is sufficient.The OT, as is mentioned in 2Tim 3:17 was sufficient - and the NT makes it even more sufficient…
After Jesus mentioning the necessity of being born again…
John 3:9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
John 5:39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
John 5:46-47 NAS95 46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
Believing on Christ is sufficient…for this is when the miracle transformation and regernation of salvation takes place…
John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Materially sufficient, yes. Formally sufficient, no.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiI have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.
I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.
I understand that Sola Scriptura is one of the Major issues between my Protestant friends and my Catholic friends.
The true Christians, in my opinion, should follow Jesus not anyone else:
- For the religious text whether written or verbal that which is from the direct mouth of Jesus, should be given preference over anything said or written by anybody else whosoever.
- The practices should be also from the deeds of Jesus, on whom he had done a continuous performance, without break say daily, weekly etc basis and he has set his followers on to it before his disappearance.
- The history or tradition cannot replace #1 and #2 above, these could be respected if these are in line with #1 and #2 above, otherwise rejected.
Jesus must be preferred, that is my view in nutshell.
Thanks
C
chet
Guest
C
cmancone
Guest
Personally, I have concluded long ago that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. It’s the only one that make sense and honestly, I think the arguments against it are flawed. Take for instance four arguments against Sola Scriptura in this post. They are very common arguments against it. Allow me to respond to them.
The first is the most common. People claim that Sola Scriptura is not claimed by the Bible, and is therefore self-defeating. The reasoning here is false. There is a hidden assumption in this argument that is easily missed, and very wrong. When a person claims that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, they are obviously assuming that if this doctrine were true, it would be mentioned in the Bible. However, there is no reason why Sola Scriptura needs to be mentioned to be true. You see, God tells us what IS His Word, He doesn’t tell us what ISN’T. Think about the distinction. We know the Bible is His word because He claimed it is. Anytime a prophet spoke for God, the specifically said, “Thus says the Lord”. Almost always, miracles accompanied the prophets so that there was no doubt that God was talking. The important point is that when God speaks, He verifies that it is truly Him speaking.
However, only a handful of times did God ever specify that someone WASN’T speaking form him. Rarely did God ever point out false prophets. The simple fact of the matter is that there are always many, many people claiming to speak for God, but 99.9% of them are either liars or crazy. You can see that it isn’t necessary for God to say that a person isn’t speaking for him. Since many people falsely claim to speak for God, anytime someone does claim to speak for God, we automatically assume they are lying (or crazy) until it is proven otherwise. This is the proper response because 99.9% of people who claim to speak for God don’t. If God took the time to correct everyone who claimed they were speaking for him when they weren’t, He’d have His hands quite full.
Now, think about this in terms of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura essentially says that the Bible is the only trustworthy source of God’s Word. That means that for the Bible to actually state Sola Scriptura, what it would actually be doing is specifying that nothing else is the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is actually a “negative” statement. It says that nothing else speaks for God. However, we’ve already established that God doesn’t bother making such claims. All God does is say what IS His word. For this reason, were Sola Scriptura true, we wouldn’t expect the Bible to say so. I would only expect the Bible to state that it is the Word of God. I wouldn’t expect it to state that nothing else is.
The simple fact of the matter is that when someone/something claims to speak for God, the burden of proof is on them. The Bible doesn’t have to specify what isn’t the Word of God, anything that is the Word of God must prove it. The Bible has proven that it was written by God. Catholic Tradition has not. Instead, Catholic apologists try to throw doubt on Sola Scriptura because it isn’t clearly stated in the Bible, when there is no reason for it to be. Instead, the burden of proof is on them. We don’t have to prove Sola Scriptura, they need to prove that their tradition is truly from God (something they’ve failed at, in my opinion). I’ll finish the other points later, I have to go.
The first is the most common. People claim that Sola Scriptura is not claimed by the Bible, and is therefore self-defeating. The reasoning here is false. There is a hidden assumption in this argument that is easily missed, and very wrong. When a person claims that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, they are obviously assuming that if this doctrine were true, it would be mentioned in the Bible. However, there is no reason why Sola Scriptura needs to be mentioned to be true. You see, God tells us what IS His Word, He doesn’t tell us what ISN’T. Think about the distinction. We know the Bible is His word because He claimed it is. Anytime a prophet spoke for God, the specifically said, “Thus says the Lord”. Almost always, miracles accompanied the prophets so that there was no doubt that God was talking. The important point is that when God speaks, He verifies that it is truly Him speaking.
However, only a handful of times did God ever specify that someone WASN’T speaking form him. Rarely did God ever point out false prophets. The simple fact of the matter is that there are always many, many people claiming to speak for God, but 99.9% of them are either liars or crazy. You can see that it isn’t necessary for God to say that a person isn’t speaking for him. Since many people falsely claim to speak for God, anytime someone does claim to speak for God, we automatically assume they are lying (or crazy) until it is proven otherwise. This is the proper response because 99.9% of people who claim to speak for God don’t. If God took the time to correct everyone who claimed they were speaking for him when they weren’t, He’d have His hands quite full.
Now, think about this in terms of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura essentially says that the Bible is the only trustworthy source of God’s Word. That means that for the Bible to actually state Sola Scriptura, what it would actually be doing is specifying that nothing else is the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is actually a “negative” statement. It says that nothing else speaks for God. However, we’ve already established that God doesn’t bother making such claims. All God does is say what IS His word. For this reason, were Sola Scriptura true, we wouldn’t expect the Bible to say so. I would only expect the Bible to state that it is the Word of God. I wouldn’t expect it to state that nothing else is.
The simple fact of the matter is that when someone/something claims to speak for God, the burden of proof is on them. The Bible doesn’t have to specify what isn’t the Word of God, anything that is the Word of God must prove it. The Bible has proven that it was written by God. Catholic Tradition has not. Instead, Catholic apologists try to throw doubt on Sola Scriptura because it isn’t clearly stated in the Bible, when there is no reason for it to be. Instead, the burden of proof is on them. We don’t have to prove Sola Scriptura, they need to prove that their tradition is truly from God (something they’ve failed at, in my opinion). I’ll finish the other points later, I have to go.
G
geezerbob
Guest
I wonder what the early Christians did when all they had to go by was what the apostles and their successors said? The only scripture in existence at that time was the old testament, which would be confusing at worst, or of limited use at best, to a neophyte Christian. Imagine the horror of having to learn through the spoken word, not the Bible.
Twenty or so years later, some writings started to appear. Some were good, some were bad. These started to circulate among the Christian communities, but it was still up to the preacher of the Word to teach what had been taught to him and not to spread any false teachings which may have been in some of the letters in circulation.
It was well over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ before the church leaders got together and determined which of those writings were inspired and which were not. Note that the new testament writings, for the most part, do not self-identify as being the word of God. During this period, preaching, or word of mouth, was the only thing the early Christians could rely on.
St. Paul exhorts his flock to hold to these oral teachings and to faithfully pass them on. This is no more and no less than what the Catholic church has done and continues to do. Remember, not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and all we have of these unwritten words and deeds is the oral tradition. To pooh pooh tradition is to blatantly ignore the words of Paul and to ignore much of what Christ did and taught. To put tradition, or the unwritten teaching of Christ, in its proper place, learn from it and live by it, is to be Catholic.
Twenty or so years later, some writings started to appear. Some were good, some were bad. These started to circulate among the Christian communities, but it was still up to the preacher of the Word to teach what had been taught to him and not to spread any false teachings which may have been in some of the letters in circulation.
It was well over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ before the church leaders got together and determined which of those writings were inspired and which were not. Note that the new testament writings, for the most part, do not self-identify as being the word of God. During this period, preaching, or word of mouth, was the only thing the early Christians could rely on.
St. Paul exhorts his flock to hold to these oral teachings and to faithfully pass them on. This is no more and no less than what the Catholic church has done and continues to do. Remember, not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and all we have of these unwritten words and deeds is the oral tradition. To pooh pooh tradition is to blatantly ignore the words of Paul and to ignore much of what Christ did and taught. To put tradition, or the unwritten teaching of Christ, in its proper place, learn from it and live by it, is to be Catholic.
K
kaycee
Guest
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith…It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity…proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
J
JimG
Guest
So would that be true for other doctrines as well?
C
Catholicdeacon
Guest
Hello L!We first need to realize that one must fully comply with scripture…is this not the case? One can never contradict scripture - that would certainly be a mistake. In the case of the CC, they do not fall in line with scripture…and, what I believe we have going on here is that the Bible may not say everything that they would like for it to say and so there needs to be some addition to the Bible so that they can further the agenda that they have.
It is almost like saying…if we had more time we would have won the game!! But, the only time that you had was 60 minutes and the game was over. This is just a thought and not an all-out accusation. When it comes to the doctrines surrounding justification/Mary/and other miscellaneous items, the CC does not fall in line with scripture although…nobody here would ever agree with that even with all the scriptural evidence that you can cite.
*2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be **perfect, thoroughly furnished ***unto all good works.
I have heard verse 16 argued as being a proof for rejection of sola scriptura (saying it is merely profitable)…BUT…they did not read all the way to the end of the chapter…verse 17 shows us the glorious sufficiency!
Code:
Not to sound rude (please forgive me if I do) but I think Pophead knows all of these pro sola scriptura arguments (And perhaps more since he's been defending it for 30 years). He clearly states that, like catholics, when you stop just quoting scripture passages and you start looking critically at the scriptural/historical/theological reasons of Sola Scripturae they do not hold water, there hast to be more than that. I humbly suggest that you give others the chance to answer his question and not just try to repeat to him what he already knows.A Catholic Deacon
J
JimG
Guest
When you say “written by God,” I assume you allow that he used human beings to do the actual writing.
But the bible, as a book–i.e., an inanimate object–cannot really prove anything. It’s up to human beings to do that. It was the Catholic Church which sifted through the early Christian writings and decided which to include in scripture, discarding those which were heterodox or not apostolic, and including those which we currently have in the bible.
T
TheApologist
Guest
Who gave you the confirmation that the writers of these books were protected from error? You have to believe the Catholic Church was the true Church for at least 400 years to believe the FULL Bible was inspired.
Catholics know the Bible inspired because they make a logical conclusion that the normal story of Jesus’s life was somewhat close to accurate. We see people died for him, who saw him after death. We conclude He was God. Then we conclude that he set up a Church led by the Spirit. Then the Church declared certain books to be inspired. This is how we know them to be inspired.
I could write a book that said “Thus says the Lord, the core of the earth is cheese.” It doesn’t make it so, unless the Spirit has inspired me to say that. Just because they used the words “thus says the Lord” doesn’t mean they are inspired. We know them to be inspired because the Church led by the Spirit proclaimed them so to be. We know the Church is the one true Church through study of a presumed historically(if not completely) accurate text.
Also, you say that God said what his Word WAS/IS and not what it WASN’T/ISN’T.
We see that God said that the traditions of MEN were wrong(aka they WEREN’T God’s Word…the traditions of MEN.
-Mt 15:3, Mt 7:9, Col 2:8
But we also see that God said, through Scripture, that His Word was the Tradition handed down through the Apostles- taught either by epistle or spoken word.
-1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6, 1 Pet 1:25, Rom 10:17, 1 Cor 15:1-2
Also, we see that the authority of God’s Word can be wielded through using the full office of a man appointed by God(the Pharisees taught correctly on Moses’ chair, but off they didn’t have the same truth- Mt 23:2-3).
Surely this is more than just Scripture…
What’s your point here?
I’ve already shown that God condemned traditions of MEN through Scripture. This is a negative statement. Besides, the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a negative statement. “Scripture is the only rule of faith” says “There is no other rule of faith but Scripture.” That’s a negative statement.
continued on next post…
T
TheApologist
Guest
Please, show me how the Bible has proven that it’s written by God? Prophesies fulfilled? Not all books of the Bible have prophesies.
Also, Catholic apologists throw doubt on Sola Scriptura because 1)it isn’t stated in the Bible, 2)they prove Catholic Tradition is God’s Word as well. Your argument is flawed. Protestants throw out ANYTHING other than Scripture. Some are not open minded at all because “Scripture is the sole rule of faith.” I’m afraid the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders to prove that your assumption of “Scripture is the sole rule of faith” is true. Your argument would hold if Protestants simply said “Scripture is a rule of faith.”(that is if Scripture actually proves itself to be inspired by itself with no Church to decide which books are in and out) 1)Scripture doesn’t prove itself as inspired. 2)Protestants say their ONLY rule of faith is Scripture, not just one of a possible many as you imply.
C
Catholicdeacon
Guest
Hello C!
This would work if the last think that Jesus did before ascending into heaven would have been tell the apostles “There you go guys, here is this book everything I want you to know is in it” But in fact he did not, what he DID leave were two things:
- The Holy Spirit which inspired his apostles to interpret and understand what he had taught them (Sounds like magisterium to me)
- The memories of the stories and events they had witnessed (Sounds like tradition to me)
Another problem with Sola Scripturae is that it ignores some very important parts of revelation. Here is an example, you claim in your post that
"Sola Scriptura is actually a “negative” statement. It says that nothing else speaks for God. "
But the bible says John 16:12-13:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
He is clearly speaking of the Holy Spirit. So were is this spirit going to reside? I scripture? Not likely since scripture is an inanimate object. It has to reside in the apostles and on those who carried their teachings throughout generations of Christians. This is how sola scritpurae contradicts the words of Jesus
In His love
A Catholic Deacon
- Status