Sola Scripture refuted, want other opinions

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisg93
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chrisg93

Guest
I have read many Catholic refutations of SS, but I have put them in a different order with a different perspective. Here is a brief synopsis that demonstrate especially that # I and #2 perhaps should come first in refuting SS.
  1. There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. John 21:25. From this passage we can see that Jesus’ teachings could never be, and were never meant to be confined to three hundred pages.
  2. SS did not exist until the 1500"s. For 1500 years SS was never argued or proposed. It was not until Martin Luther “discovered” SS that it was ever heard of. SS is not an idea of the first Christians or the early Fathers or any theologian until the 1500’s. It was fabricated primarly by one man - Martin Luther.
3, The Bible never says it is the only source of Divine wisdom…
4. The Bible encourages and promotes sacred Tradition…
5. The Church Fathers all supported Sacred Tradition…

Sola Scripture has absolutely no legs to stand on. I am trying to form an complete response to show Protestants. Again, my main point is to ask if #1 and #2 are approiate in this argument. #1 establishes the unlimited teachings of Jesus and #2 establishes that SS is a human invention. What do you think?
 
Go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and order the audio tape entitled Sola Scriptura. It is a complete response to the Sola Scriptura arguement and it uses the bible to do it.

The author, John Martignoni is an awesome speaker and Catholic apologist.
 
The Bible came from Sacred Tradition. Denying Sacred Tradition therefore denies the Bible. Each needs the other.
 
The apostle Paul, in 1Tim 3:15 refers to the Church, not the written bible, as the pillar and foundation of truth.

Christ Himself never wrote anything didn’t He? Except some unknown words in the sand. 🙂

Gerry
 
I have been doing some research on the Reformation lately and if you can sift through all the garbage written, it seems like a slam dunk against all the Protestant doctrines.

Example, using dates seems to refute alot of the misunderstandings.
From what I gather it was NOT Luther who came up with Sola Scripture, but the invention of Zwingli in 1522. Luther came up with the doctrine of Sola Fida also in 1522. Notice the Reformation took off in Germany shortly after 1517, without these two main doctrines.

Also, the idea that the printed bible caused the Reformation is pure rubbish. The dates of the printed bibles (And history bares out the fact that these were all heretical editions) are not reaching the Europeans in mass quantities until 10-15 years into the Reformation. Most Europeans could not read, and the vast majority loved their Catholic faith, but NOT the abuses of the Church Bishops and heirarchy. The people wanted change and demanded change but NOT a change in doctrine, this was a political movement that was forced upon much of Europe.

Sola Fida, Sola Scriptura, all these man made Protestant doctrines were developed as the Reformation gained steam. Luther and Zwingli were still argueing about the Eucharist in 1529, they could not unite Germany in a common Protestant denomination, so even by 1529, there is no doctrinal agrement between theologians.

Why were the Reformation doctrines developed? Primarily to take away the power of the Priesthood. The Priest can’t take away original sin through Baptism, (Priest has no power or authority) So Baptism becomes symbolic. Priest can’t forgive sins, he has no power from God to do this, confess your sins to God alone. And the Priest certainly cannot change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. So that too eventually becomes symbolic. And of course there is no Church Magisterium, The Bishops don’t have special power from God to intrepret the Scriptures, why they are so clear even,“a farm boy plowing a field has no trouble intrepreting them correctly.” (30,000 denominations later)

Thanks
 
Buckeyejoe,
Very good info. I’ll take all you can give me if you have more. What did you think about my #1 and #2?
 
Coming from a Bible alone teaching, I like #1 but give little attention to #2. I know it seems silly now, but looking at history to confirm my beliefs is not something I ever would have done. Arguments against Bible alone people must come from the Bible alone. But remember, there are many subsets of beliefs. People who call themselves Sola Scriptura may reject the term Bible alone. So make sure what the person means. Do they mean the Bible alone, or do they mean the primacy of Scripture with traditions that do not contradict it, (according to their interpretation of Scripture of course!)
 
MariaG,
Thanks. What an interesting worlds this is when we hear others opinions. I would have thought just the opposite as in - if SS can’t trace itself back to Bible times, early Christians or the Church Fathers AND it was made up by two men in the 1500’s - it can’t be Biblical.

I like my own thinking (surprise) on #2 because it doesn’t get ito the never ending Biblical passage debate. It’s neater, so to speak.

Also I didn’t know about the various subsets of SS.

What about this - - - We don’t have the original writings of the Gospels anymore. They are lost or destroyed. I truely believe that there is tremendous Godly significence to them being lost. God knew they would be lost and he allowed them be lost in order to show his Glory thru his living Church, the Catholic Church.
What do you thimk?
 
Chrisg93,

I think your right on the money with #1 and #2. I have used those exact same quotes on Fundamentalists. Give it a try and see what resistance you get. Then attack that resistance. The problem with Protestantism is it’s a moving theology, especially when you get into Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. It seems no two people respond exactly the same, and their theology is always very fuzzy, hard to pin down, like a slippery fish.

Stay focused, don’t let them stray off into some other beef about Catholicism. Keep bringing them back to Sola Scriptura, you’re right, SS has no legs to stand on, not logically at least. But it is their 500 year old tradition and they will defend it at all costs.

I also believe SS is THE MAIN PILLAR of Protestantism. If you disprove Sola Scriptura, all of Protestantism collapses.

Thanks

God Bless

Joe.
 
What about this - - - We don’t have the original writings of the Gospels anymore. They are lost or destroyed. I truely believe that there is tremendous Godly significence to them being lost. God knew they would be lost and he allowed them be lost in order to show his Glory thru his living Church, the Catholic Church.
What do you thimk?
Click to expand...
My response would be Mk 13:31 …heaven and earth will pass away but My words will by no means pass away. Meaning God’s word has never been lost.

However, the great thing about that is then you can ask : What about 2 Thess 2:15 It tells us to hold fast the traditions, whether oral or by letter.

I, in fact opened a discussion on this topic, “Where is the spoken word” in non-catholic religions. I focused on those who believe Bible alone for that is what I am familiar with, and also came out of because of the undeniable Biblical proof showing the errors of Bible alone. I narrowed the focus to finding out where God’s spoken word is, I think I know where it is(Sacred Tradition), if I am wrong tell me where is it then? There are some interesting responses, (Some great ones by Justin/Missal 1962) but it might give you an idea of the mindset of people.
 
40.png
chrisg93:
I would have thought just the opposite as in - if SS can’t trace itself back to Bible times, early Christians or the Church Fathers AND it was made up by two men in the 1500’s - it can’t be Biblical.
Click to expand...
Hi Chris 🙂

I, too, come from a “Bible alone” background and, like Maria, I would not have been moved by your argument #2. I would not have accepted that Luther introduced the concept of judging based on Scripture as the only authority of truth. I would have seen the actions of the Berean Christians as being “Bible-only” when they continually consulted the Scriptures to assess whether Paul’s preaching might be true or not.

Lutherans and most other main-line Protestants are not “Bible only” or “Bible alone”. It’s mostly what you might characterize as “fundamentalists” who are actually “Bible only”. These folks (like I was) take the Bible alone as their only book of faith and practice. They specifically do not accept creeds, confessions or catechesims. For example, the group I was with actually would have agreed that most (perhaps even all) of the Catholic creeds were true, but they would have still rejected them on the grounds that they were “man-made” and inferior to the whole Bible as the arbiter of truth.

The one thing that might have most effectively moved me is the passage that speaks of the church as being the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Peace,
Elizabeth
 
  • But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1Ti 3:15*
I struck a goldmine of information. Thanks RobedWithLight for this passage. Thanks eabrennon, cause I was going to use the Creed tomorrow with Evangelicals. They are really hung up on the regular misconceptions…Mary worship, priests and nuns babies. forced celebacy, …etc. Any suggestions?
 
You might want to research point #2 a little more.

The following are some quotes from the Church Fathers supporting Sola Scriptura.

The following is quoted from Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures.

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; not must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures–Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386)

From Basil of Caesarea’s Ascetical Works, The Morals

That every word . . .should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked–Basil of Caesarea (329-379)

From Chrysostom’s Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 13

Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scripture all these things–Chrysostom(349-407)

From Augustine’s Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, Chapter XI

Now, who is it that submits to divine Scripture, save he who reads or hears it piously, deferring to it as of supreme authority–Augustine (354-430)

These examples by no means exhaust the subject.
 
40.png
bcoger:
You might want to research point #2 a little more.

The following are some quotes from the Church Fathers supporting Sola Scriptura.

The following is quoted from Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures.

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; not must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures–Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386)

From Basil of Caesarea’s Ascetical Works, The Morals

That every word . . .should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked–Basil of Caesarea (329-379)

From Chrysostom’s Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 13

Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scripture all these things–Chrysostom(349-407)

From Augustine’s Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, Chapter XI

Now, who is it that submits to divine Scripture, save he who reads or hears it piously, deferring to it as of supreme authority–Augustine (354-430)

These examples by no means exhaust the subject.
Click to expand...
It’s important to note that, while you are on to something and a REALLY well-informed Protestant will be aware of those Fathers whose writings at some place or another support a “sola scriptura” system, those very same Fathers at other points reject that system by claiming that the Church is the arbiter in the interpretation of Scripture and, in fact, truth cannot be attained without Her guidance. The crux of the matter is a distinction between matieral and formal sufficiency. The Fathers say that the truth is there in the Scriptures (thus, materially, they are sufficient) but you need the Church to recognize and understand that truth (giving it form). Thus the Fathers do not consider Scripture formally sufficient.
 
Check out Dave Armstrong’s dialogues on this subject. Watch out for the SolO Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura argument. (Yes, I know “solo” is not proper Latin, but that’s the colloquial term for it). To dodge the main thrust of the argument, some non-Catholics will trot out the idea that you do not understand the distinction between the two. So, make sure you understand the distinction, BUT DON’T LET THEM OFF THE HOOK BECAUSE OF IT. That is, either distinction eventually leads to the same dead end, so stick to your guns.

Scott
 
Response to Andreas Hofer in post #15

You say,

<The Fathers say that the truth is there in the Scriptures (thus, materially, they are sufficient) but you need the Church to recognize and understand that truth (giving it form). Thus the Fathers do not consider Scripture formally sufficient.>

A compelling (persuasive) apologetic is being framed. Keep in mind that you are going to have to prove the distinctions between ‘formally sufficiency’ and ‘material sufficiency’ (in the Church Fathers) if point #2 in the apologetic under consideration is to be persuasive with protestants. You won’t be able to simply say that no Church father before Luther supported ‘sola scriptura.’ An informed protestant will simply bring out the references in post #14, as well as others. To be persuasive, it will be necessary to harmonize the various pronouncements in the Church Fathers (i.e. those which appear to support ‘sola scriptura’ and those which appear to support ‘formal sufficiency’).

Are we agreed here?
 
Quite agreed, bcoger. When I get some time I’ll try to re-find some of the things I’ve read on it. I once found a very helpful site that had lists of quotes from Fathers, one list seeming to support sola scriptura and the other advocating Tradition. Of course, never trust lists completely because things can be taken out of context, but they are helpful in at least narrowing down search areas and organizing an arguement for consensus.
 
Bible Alone is easily refuted using the simple yet elegant argument of “who gave *you * authority to interpret scripture?”.

That is the most direct approach and everything else tends to overcomplicate the matter.

Warning: be careful to use this approach with love, its effectiveness has caused many emotions to rage as I have found.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top