Why do RC's always request a defining verse(s) for Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter De_Maria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

De_Maria

Guest
I saw this question on an anti-Catholic board. The poster seemed to think that it was unfair for Catholics to continually ask for “a specific verse from the Bible regarding Sola Scriptura?”

What do you think?
 
It’s completely fair, if Protestants are going to say that something has to be explicitly in scripture, then they need to follow their own standards.
 
How is it unfair? If you wanna be a sola scriptura, you have to be sola scriptura.

(The reason we ask this is because it demonstrates how sola scriptura is self disproving and untenable, and further that an examination of the Bible shows against sola scriptura)

A similar question is where does the Bible give you the Canon of the Bible, which leads more into the historical authority of the Church
 
Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating doctrine. That’s one of the things that drove me from Protestantism. “The Bible is the only doctrinal authority that we follow, but the Bible itself doesn’t say that it’s the sole authority…you just have to trust us on this one…”.
If there’s no authority outside of the Bible, how was the canon of Scripture selected in the first place? The Catholic Church Just happened to get that right?
Scripture actually teaches the opposite of Sola Scriptura. For example “hold on to the traditions handed down to you whether by word of mouth or by letter”…(2 Thess 2:15).
 
/s No no no, the Protestants who took out the Apocrypha got it right as it just so happens, not the Church. So, you see, we’ve only had a real Canon for less than 500 years, and that Canon of the Bible is what was supposed to be all Christians’ Bible to base off their doctrine, even though mostly they couldn’t read until about 500 years ago and had the wrong Canon. Oh, and the doctrines of about all Christians were wrong until about 500 years ago.
Did I mention it’s good to be born in the last 500 or so years! Due to good ol’ Luth- I mean Cal- I mean Zwing- no I mean Roger Williams.
/s
 
Last edited:
If the Bible is the only true source of Christian truth, then wouldnt that truth say so? Because if the bible doesn’t, then… somethig outside of the Bible has lead you to that conclusion… gasp
 
Was it asked un-ironically? Why wouldn’t we ask them to provide proof of sola scriptura from Scripture? The following dialogue comes to mind:

“You can only get good information about a book from the book itself”
“Does your book make that claim?”
“No… but why aren’t you asking me what the CliffsNotes for the book say about it?”
 
Of course Catholics are going to ask that! The burden of proof is on them because it is them claiming that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. If they can’t point to where it says it in the Bible, the contradiction seems obvious to me. It is an unworkable doctrine, especially since there is no “inspired table of contents” as Patrick Madrid has said in debates.
 
No. It proves scripture is useful, and that scripture is authoritative, but it doesn’t prove Sola scriptura
 
Wrong verse. 1 Timothy 3:15 says that the Church, not the Bible, is the “pillar and foundation of truth”.
 
That’s actually Psalm 119:105, but I know what you meant.
 
Doesn’t 1 Timothy 3:15 prove Sola Scriptura?? 🤔
I can’t tell if that was sarcastic or sincere, but while someone might point to that, it’s actually an example that counters sola scriptura. Paul is writing to them as a way of instruction because he isn’t present, and his teaching (that of the Church) is the authority. The fact that it was written is incidental; that was simply the mode of convenient communication and not noteworthy in itself.
 
I would never ever never be sarcastic. No! Not me. I deeply resent such an accusation. 🧐
 
Last edited:
They are most uncomfortable because they cannot show a single word, let alone a verse, paragraph, chapter or book to demonstrate their founding doctrine. Their house is built on the sand of personal opinion, and so the winds blew and scattered the sand. The wind, in this case, was the blowhards who thought they were smarter than our Lord. Today, as then, they wave their bibles at each other, disagree and divide. Where is that in the bible? Their angst may very well stem from the creeping suspicion that Catholics might be, could be, potentially are… correct.

Just as they argue incessantly about justification, they also overcompensate for their insecurity by claiming that Catholic doctrines are man-made - when they have the most readily identifiable man-made doctrines in Judeo-Christian history. Another difficulty is that if they abandon bible alone, they must obey someone other than themselves, or their favorite pastor with the best suit and hair style.

Their founding emperors had no clothes, and neither do their successors. Jesus never taught anything written. He did not teach that we should run to the written page and argue over it. He never wrote a thing that was recorded, never commanded the writing of anything.

He sent Apostles with authority. They handed that authority on to their successors.
 
Last edited:
All I saw was numbers. I’m honestly not paying much attention to the conversation.
 
Bible Christians demand proof from Catholics, but when the shoe is on the other foot, well…

If the bible is really the sole rule, then it must clearly say so!

Somewhere…

…right?

This makes as much sense as those non/denominations that proudly claim that they adhere to no “creed”

…then turn right around and post their “Statement of Beliefs”…

…which is a creed.

🤨
 
Neither does it define what scripture is, how it was arrived at, or how the “Sacred Table of Contents” of the bible came to be.

Feel sorry for them - it’s all they have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top