Stumped by Protestant on Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter RaiseMeUp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s going to take time for you to get up to speed with answers for stuff like this. However, I have an article on my blog that resulted from a similar discussion some years back that may help you a bit as well as a couple of others that are related.
God bless Bro.


  1. *]“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
    *]The Eucharist IS Scriptural
    *]Catholic Confession
    *]Scriptures About Penance
    *]Does the Bible teach that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?
    *]Do Catholics Read the Bible?
 
RaiseMeUp said:
What would be some good examples that are not just written?
Click to expand...
2nd Thes. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth( tradition) or by letter(scripture)].

THe passages he quoted you do not say scripture only.
But this clearly says both.
 
Short version: The Prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4) destroys the concept of scripture alone. We see in it that Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada - from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote his Gospel only to confirm the oral Apostolic Tradition that Theophilus had already received.

There is no “Sacred Table of Contents” in any of the books of the bible. It must have come from somewhere, and by the authority given from God. As well, there were hundreds of “scriptures” existing at that time. Very few of them are in the bible. Ask him why that is.
 
RaiseMeUp said:
What are some examples of tradition I can present that are not explicit in scripture? Because as far as the sacraments go, I’ve been able to explain to him why they are done and show him their biblical basis - which is what started this debate and where he got his point of view that if its all biblical then therefore its written and you don’t need anything more than what is written. :eek:
Click to expand...
Ask your friend to read the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and the Thessalonains. In each he states to hold on to the traditions taught by “word of mouth or letter”. Saint Paul was equating tradition to the sacred Scripture as complements of each other. Neither should be used alone. Help the person to realize that if they limit the word of God to Scripture they are negating the role of the Holy Spirit acting in the world today.
God Bless.
 
Here is my two cents on sola scriptura. I was raised in a Protestant church for pretty much my entire life. However, I did go to catholic school and I do read about church history. Reformation ect. Now from what I read about the council of Carthage was that the early church leaders basically got together and compiled 72 books that would make up the bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scriptures are God breathed (awkward grammar sorry) that scripture was drilled in my head when I was younger. Alright fair enough but there are also scriptures that were not put into the bible. The job of the council was to decide which ones were inspired and which weren’t (my cousin taught me that) so that gives us 45 in the old and 27 in the new inspired scriptures in the bible.

Then well the reformation happened and Martin Luther decides 6 books were actually not inspired and cut down the 72 to 66. Now the argument with sola scriptura is that the bible is the sole authority of the church and nothing is above it. Now the problem with this is that the bible can’t interpret itself. That is why the Catholic Church has the catechism of the Catholic Church. As Michael Cumbie says it is the second most important book because it helps to interpret the first most important book being the bible. The catechism is the reason the church has been around for 2000 years and has remained the same through sacred tradition based on scripture and church authority which is why sola scriptura and sola fide are not catholic doctrine.

Sola scriptura’s argument is that the bible is the ultimate and that things like the catechism is adding to the word of God. (For some odd reasons many Protestants believe Catholics added to the bible. Not sure if they mean the 6 books they took out or the catechism) Now in theory, the idea of sola scriptura is that the bible can’t be changed “heaven and earth will pass away and God’s words are everlasting.” So the belief is you can’t add or take away from the bible. But here’s the problem. You have a church with 500 people and they all have to read and interpret the bible for themselves. The reality is 500 will not come to the same conclusion. Then the pastor preaches the same scripture on Sunday and there is mixed beliefs. By the next church members meeting a good portion of the church leaves.

That’s why sola scriptura cannot work. If people don’t have a guide like the catechism not everyone will be in agreement. That’s why there are so many Protestant denominations and one Catholic Church. In my opinion many Protestants don’t even practice sola scriptura since many just believe what their pastors preach on that scripture sort of like a verbal catechism which means his words decides what his churches beliefs will be.

As a kid I bounced back and forth between churches and every church believes a different thing. Some even went as far as to say you don’t need the sacraments you only have to believe in God and accept Jesus in order to be Christian. Yes scripture says this but scripture says we need the sacraments like baptism and confirmation. So that’s why I left the churches that taught sola scriptura and sola fide because neither make any sense and only work in theory really.

That’s just my bit on it based on my readings. I may have some thing wrong but just my opinion.
 
Great thinking, confusedgirl! We note, in Nehemiah 8:5-8, and in Acts 8:26-35 that smeone in authority was to interpret the scriptures. The people were read the law by the Levites under Ezra, but the Levites also “gave the sense of it”, interpreting so that the people knew the true sense of the law. The educated, literate Ethiopian eunuch could not understand Isaiah until and unless Philip properly interpreted it for him. Even the noble Bereans of Acts 17, who searched the scriptures daily, had no idea that Jesus was the Messiah until Paul properly interpreted those passages as pointing to an obscure man from a tiny town in Galilee called Nazareth.
 
The thing to remember is that a lot of Protestants equate sola scriptura with holding the Bible in the highest regards. So when they look at passages of the Bible like 2 Timothy 3:16 that teach us to follow the scriptures and revere them they automatically assume it means sola scriptura. But of course there is a big difference between holding the Bible highly and seeing it as the only infallible authority.
 
fallow_spirit said:
The thing to remember is that a lot of Protestants equate sola scriptura with holding the Bible in the highest regards. So when they look at passages of the Bible like 2 Timothy 3:16 that teach us to follow the scriptures and revere them they automatically assume it means sola scriptura. But of course there is a big difference between holding the Bible highly and seeing it as the only infallible authority.
Click to expand...
Nicely put. The same thing - holding to the principle of Sola Scriptura - also leads to the ignoring or the minimizing of other verses and passages that point to “Church” as being authoritative.

Peace
James
 
Hi there RaiseMeUp

From what I can see Sola Scriptura is an internally consistent approach to to the faith. It’s as consistent as a scripture + tradition approach. Both approaches come with presuppositions, or “rules” by which other things are judged. I haven’t seen a good disproof by one approach of the other without relying on presuppositions that the other person would not grant. I think that is why the argument is often pretty futile, as are most arguments between people of different belief systems.

God bless +

Michael
 
Michael_Allen said:
Hi there RaiseMeUp

From what I can see Sola Scriptura is an internally consistent approach to to the faith. It’s as consistent as a scripture + tradition approach. Both approaches come with presuppositions, or “rules” by which other things are judged. I haven’t seen a good disproof by one approach of the other without relying on presuppositions that the other person would not grant. I think that is why the argument is often pretty futile, as are most arguments between people of different belief systems.

God bless +

Michael
Click to expand...
Nicely put Michael…

The thing that needs to be addressed in these matters is the relative importance and synergism between “scripture” and “tradition” and “church” etc…
I often find that it is in these areas that the real presuppositions exist and the areas that people (myself included I’m sure) are least willing to grant…

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top