Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaldean_Rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PJM said:
Extremely well done! Thank you so very much!👍
Click to expand...
You are welcome. Please share this because it was the one book that really convinced me of the horror of Sola Scripura, which sounds so comforting sometimes (“just me and my bible”)
 
Did you know that you can refute sola scriptura using the Bible alone? It’s easy. I have a booklet of Bible verses that help to explain the Catholic faith. Here is what is listed under sola scriptura:

(John 21:25 RSV) 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.

Not all that Jesus said or did is in the New Testament.

(Romans 7:2 RSV) Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
(Romans 7:3 RSV) Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Nowhere in this chapter does Paul say that the woman needs to be married to the “other man”. This shows that the Bible alone is not sufficient - Paul did not mean that a relationship outside of marriage was permitted.

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

This is quite clear. We are to maintain the traditions that the early Church fathers have delivered to us.

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

This is quite clear. One of the clearest scriptural refutations of sola scriptura. We are to hold to the traditions which were taught to us by the early Church fathers.

(2 Thessalonians 3:6 RSV) 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.

This is quite clear. We are to live in accord with the tradition and scripture and the Magisterium.

(1 Timothy 3:15 RSV) 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.

This says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, not the Bible.

(2 Timothy 3:16 RSV) All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

It says that all scripture is useful but does not imply that it is necessary or complete. Scripture here refers to the Old Testament. The New Testament had not been written. This, then would mean that we only needed the Old Testament and what Christian would accept that?

(2 Peter 1:20 RSV) First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

The Church is the only entity that can infallibly interpret scripture.

(2 Peter 3:16 RSV) 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.

Private interpretation is the reason that so many people have been led astray which, in turn, is responsible for all the non-Catholic denominations.

There was one other scripture quotation in the booklet, 3 John 13-14 which I will not quote because of it’s length. The note says “Where is this ‘face to face’ discussion in the Bible?”

And the comment of this section says:

The early Church, from the time of the Apostles, relied on the teachings and then later the writings of the Apostles. St. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to rely not only on the written word of God, but also, oral Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Oral teaching was mostly used - remember most poeple did not know how to read even if written material was available to them. Also, the Bible does not teach that it is the only guide for Christians but the Church is. See 1 Timothy 3:15.
 
Holly3278 said:
Did you know that you can refute sola scriptura using the Bible alone? It’s easy. I have a booklet of Bible verses that help to explain the Catholic faith. Here is what is listed under sola scriptura:

(John 21:25 RSV) 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.

Not all that Jesus said or did is in the New Testament.

(Romans 7:2 RSV) Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
(Romans 7:3 RSV) Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Nowhere in this chapter does Paul say that the woman needs to be married to the “other man”. This shows that the Bible alone is not sufficient - Paul did not mean that a relationship outside of marriage was permitted.

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

This is quite clear. We are to maintain the traditions that the early Church fathers have delivered to us.

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

This is quite clear. One of the clearest scriptural refutations of sola scriptura. We are to hold to the traditions which were taught to us by the early Church fathers.

(2 Thessalonians 3:6 RSV) 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.

This is quite clear. We are to live in accord with the tradition and scripture and the Magisterium.

(1 Timothy 3:15 RSV) 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.

This says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, not the Bible.

(2 Timothy 3:16 RSV) All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

It says that all scripture is useful but does not imply that it is necessary or complete. Scripture here refers to the Old Testament. The New Testament had not been written. This, then would mean that we only needed the Old Testament and what Christian would accept that?

(2 Peter 1:20 RSV) First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

The Church is the only entity that can infallibly interpret scripture.

(2 Peter 3:16 RSV) 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.

Private interpretation is the reason that so many people have been led astray which, in turn, is responsible for all the non-Catholic denominations.

There was one other scripture quotation in the booklet, 3 John 13-14 which I will not quote because of it’s length. The note says “Where is this ‘face to face’ discussion in the Bible?”

And the comment of this section says:

The early Church, from the time of the Apostles, relied on the teachings and then later the writings of the Apostles. St. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to rely not only on the written word of God, but also, oral Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Oral teaching was mostly used - remember most poeple did not know how to read even if written material was available to them. Also, the Bible does not teach that it is the only guide for Christians but the Church is. See 1 Timothy 3:15.
Click to expand...
Good stuff Holly.

I actually wrote a bit myself back in the day.

Please check it out!

www.members.cox.net/humurabi/Catholic_Apologia.pdf <== longer

www.members.cox.net/humurabi/AreYouSaved.pdf <== shorter
 
Holly3278 said:
Did you know that you can refute sola scriptura using the Bible alone? It’s easy.

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

This is quite clear. One of the clearest scriptural refutations of sola scriptura. We are to hold to the traditions which were taught to us by the early Church fathers.
Click to expand...
It isn’t as easy as it may appear to you.

What are those traditions in 2Thess2:15 that Paul asks the Thessalonians to stand firm in? Are these traditions found elsewhere in scripture or are they part of an entirely seperate body revelation?
 
SemperReformada said:
It isn’t as easy as it may appear to you.

What are those traditions in 2Thess2:15 that Paul asks the Thessalonians to stand firm in? Are these traditions found elsewhere in scripture or are they part of an entirely seperate body revelation?
Click to expand...
Explain to me what you mean by ‘body of revelation’.

Is it something that ended with the last writing of what we now call scripture?
Did it end with the death of the last apostle?

Help me to know your understanding of the difference between these two questions.

michel
 
cazayoux said:
Explain to me what you mean by ‘body of revelation’.

Is it something that ended with the last writing of what we now call scripture?
Did it end with the death of the last apostle?

Help me to know your understanding of the difference between these two questions.

michel
Click to expand...
I’m only trying to discern what the poster believes with regards to “tradition”. for example, some Catholics believe part of God’s revelation is found in scripture and part in oral tradition. Others have a different take believing that all that is contained within “oral tradition” can also be found, at least implicitly, in scripture.

Either way, it would seem to me that in order to use 2Thess2:15 as a proof text against sola scriptura one would have to have a way of defining exactly what Paul meant by tradition (ie. what are the “things” included in the term 'tradition" that Paul spoke of).

So, what traditions did Paul speak of? Are there any apostolic traditions that aren’t a part of scripture?
 
SemperReformada said:
I’m only trying to discern what the poster believes with regards to “tradition”. for example, some Catholics believe part of God’s revelation is found in scripture and part in oral tradition. Others have a different take believing that all that is contained within “oral tradition” can also be found, at least implicitly, in scripture.

Either way, it would seem to me that in order to use 2Thess2:15 as a proof text against sola scriptura one would have to have a way of defining exactly what Paul meant by tradition (ie. what are the “things” included in the term 'tradition" that Paul spoke of).

So, what traditions did Paul speak of? Are there any apostolic traditions that aren’t a part of scripture?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the first Christians didn’t have a Bible, and wouldn’t have one until around 400 A.D. And even then Bibles weren’t commonly available until the printing press was invented in around 1500 A.D. So all of Apostolic teaching would have been oral, and thus they would have to rely on the Holy Spirit to ensure that it was handed down accurately. So all Christian teaching is Apostolic Tradition, in a sense.

To answer your question: yes ad no, there are some Apostolic Traditions that aren’t explicitly stated in Scripture. That’s not to say they aren’t there, but they ARE implied in the text. A good example is the Trinity. The Bible never says that God is a Triune God, meaning 3 separate and unique persons in 1 being. But you can infer it from the text (actually you accept the Church’s teaching authority if you accept the Trinity as true, seeing as the Catholic Church was the first to define it ;))

There is not a single Apostolic Tradition without Scriptural basis. So yes, there are teachings that are not plainly stated but can be inferred, but no, Apostolic Traditions are always based on Scripture.
 
SemperReformada said:
So, what traditions did Paul speak of? Are there any apostolic traditions that aren’t a part of scripture?
Click to expand...
It’s also worth noting that the apostles taught with authority and passed on their oral teachings. Even two of the gospels are second hand accounts. Mark and Luke were not apostles, but students of the apostles, yet their second hand accounts are counted with scripture.

The point isn’t to find a record of every mention of oral teaching in the new testament.
The point is that those early Christians didn’t function by scripture alone.

If scripture alone was SO important, why did the Christian Church wait until the end of the fourth century to determine what was and wasn’t scripture? If scripture alone was to be the binding practice, why didn’t we see the early church more quickly define, of all the Christian writings out there, which ones were and were not inspired?

michel
 
SemperReformada said:
So, what traditions did Paul speak of? Are there any apostolic traditions that aren’t a part of scripture?
Click to expand...
Thats a GREAT question and according to people who adhere to Sola Scriptura, this must be abel to be answered in scripture itself or you have a problem. 🤷
 
cazayoux said:
It’s also worth noting that the apostles taught with authority and passed on their oral teachings. Even two of the gospels are second hand accounts. Mark and Luke were not apostles, but students of the apostles, yet their second hand accounts are counted with scripture.

The point isn’t to find a record of every mention of oral teaching in the new testament.
The point is that those early Christians didn’t function by scripture alone.

If scripture alone was SO important, why did the Christian Church wait until the end of the fourth century to determine what was and wasn’t scripture? If scripture alone was to be the binding practice, why didn’t we see the early church more quickly define, of all the Christian writings out there, which ones were and were not inspired?

michel
Click to expand...
I appreciate your response but I still don’t see how 2Thess2:15 can be used to disprove sola scriptura.
 
SemperReformada said:
I appreciate your response but I still don’t see how 2Thess2:15 can be used to disprove sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
2 Thes 2:15
[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.

Scripture shows us that scripture ALONE is not scriptural.
Jews did not function by it in the O.T.
Christians did not funtction by it in the N.T.
NOBODY pushed ‘scripture alone’ as a teaching until the 15th century.
It’s a new teaching.
In fact, ‘Scripture alone’ is a (new) tradition of men that negates the word of God.

Don’t take this thread to mean that Catholics do not put scripture in a place in which no other authority is higher.
We LOVE scripture.
The bible is OUR book.
It is the Catholic Church that protected it for centuries.
Scripture is our greatest Tradition.

Let me pose a question.
What came first, the bible or the church?

michel
 
cazayoux said:
2 Thes 2:15
[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.

Scripture shows us that scripture ALONE is not scriptural.
Jews did not function by it in the O.T.
Christians did not funtction by it in the N.T.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion from this verse unless you can somehow demonstrate what Paul meant by “tradition”.

Anyway, sola scriptura wouldn’t have been the norm during the time when the scripture was being developed.
cazayoux said:
Let me pose a question.
What came first, the bible or the church?
michel
Click to expand...
The church pre-dated the compilation of the scriptures into one book which we call the bible. Why is this important?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top