Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaldean_Rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
The assertion is being made Protestants… It is up to the Protestants to prove their tradition, in this case Sola Scriptura. And, if its supported by the Bible and history.

Tone was not meant to be harsh… written word is hard to communicate.
  • Michael
–
Check out my blog at: http:\www.edailymissal.org
 
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...
According to the early Church Fathers, it was both.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+
 
SemperReformada said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, tradition here would be pretty much all Christian teaching. Since the Bible as we know it didn’t exist until the Catholic Church compiled it in around 400 A.D., all Christian doctrine was passed on through word of mouth. This is oral tradition. The reason we have the Bible today is because the Holy Spirit protected the passing down of oral tradition to make sure it was free from error. The Catholic Church has never lost this protection. The Protestant church has never had this protection (hence the 30,000+ denominations).

Also, what you would call “Catholic Tradition” was actually basic Christian Tradition until the Reformation. All the early Christians agreed on this “Catholic stuff” that Protestants love to bash today. Things that are mostly Catholic belief today (i.e. Purgatory, infant baptism, Apostolic Succession, etc…) were agreed upon by ALL early Christians until the Reformation.

So here’s the real question. If (for the sake of the argument) the Catholic Church is NOT the True Church:
  1. Which Protestant denomination is the True Church? Remember, the True Church is a physical church, not a spiritual fellowship of believers. James 5:14 pretty much says that the True Church is a real, physical church.
  2. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 1500 years before correcting it? In the OT, God only allowed the Jews to be in error for a hundred years or so before sending Babylon/Assyria/Persia/etc… to ruin them and show them the Truth of God. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 10x that amount of time?
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Where did Zondervan get it from friend? Did God give it to them? Why is the letter of Philemon in the bible? How do we know that it was supposed to be in there?
Click to expand...
The early church went through a process by which particular books were gathered together and placed in one volume that we now know as the Bible.

Was the church infallible? No it isn’t nor is it now.
 
teak421 said:
The assertion is being made Protestants… It is up to the Protestants to prove their tradition, in this case Sola Scriptura. And, if its supported by the Bible and history.

Tone was not meant to be harsh… written word is hard to communicate.
  • Michael
–
Check out my blog at: http:\www.edailymissal.org
Click to expand...
You didn’t come across as being harsh and you need to go back and read the first part of this thread. A Catholic poster stated that 2Thess2:15 is a proof text against sola scriptura, ie. a Catholic made an assertion.
 
SemperReformada said:
The early church went through a process by which particular books were gathered together and placed in one volume that we now know as the Bible.

Was the church infallible? No it isn’t nor is it now.
Click to expand...
Please, enlighten us on this process.
 
cazayoux said:
Yes.
That there are 27 specific books that make up the new testament.

michel
Click to expand...
Okay, so is that pretty much it? Everything else is found in scripture? If it is, 2Thess2:15 goes away as a proof text against sola scriptura.
 
SemperReformada said:
The early church went through a process by which particular books were gathered together and placed in one volume that we now know as the Bible.

Was the church infallible? No it isn’t nor is it now.
Click to expand...
If you don’t think the church’s decision was infallible, then you have no idea if the bible you have is complete or bloated.
There were writings that many thought were inspired that didn’t make it into the new testament.
There were writings that many didn’t think were inspired that DID make it into the new testament.
If Jesus didn’t found a church that can tell you with 100% certainty, why would he inspire writings at all?
I mean … why inspire writings if people couldn’t KNOW they were inspired?

michel
 
SemperReformada said:
Okay, so is that pretty much it? Everything else is found in scripture? If it is, 2Thess2:15 goes away as a proof text against sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
That’s not it … but let’s start there.
The ONLY way we know what writings were inspired is by the infallible authority that Jesus gave to His church.

michel
 
cazayoux said:
If you don’t think the church’s decision was infallible, then you have no idea if the bible you have is complete or bloated.
Click to expand...
I have no infallible way of knowing whether or not the canon I accept is 100% correct. Then again, you have no infallible way to know that the claims the RCC makes are true.
cazayoux said:
If Jesus didn’t found a church that can tell you with 100% certainty, why would he inspire writings at all?
I mean … why inspire writings if people couldn’t KNOW they were inspired?

michel
Click to expand...
What did the Jews do before the supposed infallible magesterium? Why did God inspire the OT prophets to write scripture when the Jews were without a means of infallibly knowing what was and what wasn’t scripture?
 
cazayoux said:
That’s not it … but let’s start there.
The ONLY way we know what writings were inspired is by the infallible authority that Jesus gave to His church.

michel
Click to expand...
We aren’t discussing infallibility. Someone offered up 2Thess2:15 as a proof text against sola scriptura and it is a very poor proof text.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top