Why not Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Merrikay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Merrikay

Guest
Hi all. First post here! I’m a cradle Protestant of the Pentecostal/Messianic variety. I started attending an Anglican Church (Anglo-catholic) about 6 months ago and am subsequently becoming more and more interested in Roman Catholicism. I’m going through a trying time of figuring out what is true, what has just been indoctrination etc. and trying to distinguish between my own wants and what God actually wants for me. I feel pulls to the Catholic Church for various reasons, but obviously I have a lot of things to work through and figured the best way was to speak with Catholic brothers and sisters. One of the biggest questions I struggle with is the title, being raised to rely on the Bible alone for answers, and knowing common verses that protestants cite in defense of this… just as I ask, why not Sola Scriptura? Thanks in advance!
 
What’s its basis? even the Early Church Fathers didnt believe in it…
 


These sources can probably explain it better than I can.

The way I see it is that, scripture was created after God inspired the authors. Scripture is the word of God.

However, God continues to work in our lives today, and there are things that people such as the apostles or saints were told by God that have not been included in the scriptures.
Catholics see the Pope as infallible in matters of faith because we believe that God continues to work in the Church today, and will keep the Pope from erring.
The Pope can not make an error in matters of faith because we believe that God would keep him from doing so.
 
I was protestant most of my life. I wholeheartedly believed sola scriptura. When I started investigating Catholicism, my eyes were opened to the riches I had been missing out on. Now the idea of bible-alone seems so minimalistic. The bible, coupled with Tradition, and the Church, is such a rich treasure that blesses us beyond all imagination.
 
Considering there was a few hundred years before a set canon was put down, there was no “Bible” as we know it today for the early Christians.

The Bible we have, was decided on at councils by Catholic Bishops.

Protestantism has no historical basis in any truth when they claim to be returning to the “early church”.
 
I like to ask, did Jesus write a book, or start a Church?
 
I would ask, where in the Bible does it list the books of the Bible?
 
No denying scripture is important, but scripture is not all inclusive. To prove this, let’s simply look at scripture:

Gospel of John; Chapter 20

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

Gospel of John; Chapter 21

24 his is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 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.

Pax et bonum!
 
Hi all. First post here! I’m a cradle Protestant of the Pentecostal/Messianic variety. I started attending an Anglican Church (Anglo-catholic) about 6 months ago and am subsequently becoming more and more interested in Roman Catholicism. I’m going through a trying time of figuring out what is true, what has just been indoctrination etc. and trying to distinguish between my own wants and what God actually wants for me. I feel pulls to the Catholic Church for various reasons, but obviously I have a lot of things to work through and figured the best way was to speak with Catholic brothers and sisters. One of the biggest questions I struggle with is the title, being raised to rely on the Bible alone for answers, and knowing common verses that protestants cite in defense of this… just as I ask, why not Sola Scriptura? Thanks in advance!
It is not the belief of the early Christians. It was not the Lord’s intention for Scripture to function as the “sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice” (and an idea not even mentioned in the New Testament).
 
I would ask, where in the Bible does it list the books of the Bible?
This is a strong argument against Sola Scriptura, specifically the NT canon. Protestants tend to defend SS in 3 ways.
  1. They argue the books in the canon tend to follow certain criteria. Thus, it was kind of an autopilot process, not needing a Magisterium. But the criteria suggested vary, many noncanonical books meet some criteria as well as the 27 in the canon. In any event, how would we know the criteria have any validity at all?
  2. Others argue there is no need for a Magisterium because the books were chosen “by the community” or “by the scholars”. But there were hundreds of communities and scholars, some of which had wildly different theologies and scriptures. The tiny NT canon points towards a highly centralized, authority process. A horizontal committee process would result in a canon with 300 books, and counting.
  3. Some argue we know the canon is reliable, because God directly chose it. But then this is also the argument of the Mormons and others for their canons. Check out “A New New Testament” for a recent example, with mainline support. This approach is logical, once you reject a single, visible Magisterium.
In effect, the great majority of Protestants are, for now, following the Magisterium’s NT canon. Sola Scriptura, if followed further, will lead to personal choice as to which books are (for me) inspired, and which are not.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you, of course. The only clarification is that I would say, instead of “Church”, I would say one part of the Church, the Magisterium. I think you were assuming that, as I would. But many Christians, especially those born in recent decades, are influenced by the “We are the Church” mentality, as in “we all decide what is true or false”. But as St. Paul taught, the parts of “the Church” are not identical with each other.
 
Last edited:
For awhile, i wondered about this too. But started to realize that you might consider the Bible as a biography of part of Christ’s life. Not everything he said or done is in there, and for the scriptures to be written, Jesus first had to live His ministry. So logically, tradition came first, or there’d be no scripture. Does this help?
re: tradition;
Besides pure “sola scriptura” there is an alternative proposed by some. “Sola scriptura plus Tradition”, or “sola scriptura guided by Tradition”. They add a second leg to the tripod described by Deacon Jeff. The problem is that there are hundreds of Christian “traditions” from the ancient Church, and thousands more since then. Which of the traditions constitute the core of authoritative Christian Tradition (sometimes referred to as Christian orthodoxy).

Some argue we can always consult this list of reliable “Early Church Fathers”, and avoid the ideas from this other list of unreliable “heretics”. But who decided which guy goes on which list? Someone had to “canonize” a tiny portion of the countless Christian traditions, designate this tiny portion as Tradition.

Thus, the tripod needs all 3 legs.
 
Last edited:
The short answer is that the definition of Scripture is those books that were selected by the teaching authority of the bishops, driven largely by those that the bishops chose for use in liturgy.

The Sola Scriptura argument against Sola Scriptura John 16:12-13, which says “this isn’t all; the Paraclete will tell you more.”

hawk
 
There seems to be some compelling material here and I can’t wait to show my hubby and discuss it with him. Thank you all!
 
One of the biggest questions I struggle with is the title, being raised to rely on the Bible alone for answers, and knowing common verses that protestants cite in defense of this… just as I ask, why not Sola Scriptura? Thanks in advance!
First, God wrote and inspired Scripture. He wrote it in the hearts of men. When Jesus was Crucified, it was written into the heart of Mary. For even as Simeon stated: a sword shall pierce your heart. And recall when she found Jesus in the temple, she remembered and kept these events in her heart. Interesting to note, how descriptive the Gospel of Saint Luke is on Mary’s life. She told him a lot. This late Christian, had the gift to listen to Mary. And began to write to his friend Theopholus (i.e. lover of God.)

My trek with Scripture was Sola Scriptura. But, one thing had to validate before me. Was that works like the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism had to be proven to be Scriptural. That was my start. Having read the Catechism, and wanting to see how it was rooted in Scripture, took me a long process. And, seeing references to Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Summa, also caused me to have more investigation.

When I began reading Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Summa, I was just shocked. His work was Scriptural, but with Reason. In other words, they were a defense of the faith. So, it was Scruptura, Ratio, and Fides. All three coincide in his works. I then had to ask my friend to order the entire Summa for me. My friend then asked my Grandma, if I knew how many books were written. It didn’t matter to me. I just said order and send them all. Because, the brilliance of this Saint was a good articulate defense of our faith. It was a defense of Scripture. But with demonstration through Reason. And I liked that.

Well, something happened. I ended up getting three books. One was the shorter version of the Summa, which was good/did help. The other book I received was the Aquinas Prescription. I enjoyed it, by Father Vann. Now, around that time, which the book came to my house. My Grandma and I were invited to First Communion of one of my cousins. We encountered a priest from India. His analogy of receiving Christ, in the Sacrament, was as important, of utmost importance, as taking necessary medication. To take it every day. That astonished me. Because, that was Saint Thomas Aquinas’s biggest contribution, in defense of the Holy Eucharist. And the songs and hymns laden through the Mass, or in Exposition of the Holy Sacrament, he contributed to. I started to believe.

Scripture is true. It is defensible. But if it falls out of the Church, Her mind, and Sacred body, then it is defenseless. For without the Church, Scripture is exposed to so many ruinous attempts to understand. For even the Ethiopian Eunuch saw Saint Phillip, and asked him what this reading meant, in some part what we now call/behold as Scripture. Even the Ethiopian Eunuch did not try to do the teaching authority and understanding on his own. But asked Phillip, an Apostle, the Church.
 
Last edited:
Sola Scriptura, besides not biblical, is not logical.

The Bible is not enough. This may be unthinkable for you but
contrary to what Sola Scriptura Christians think, the Bible alone is not enough.

You can look high and low, narrow and wide, deep and shallow, but you cannot find where it says that Bible alone is enough.

We need the Church to understand the Bible but more… to receive the tradition and the teaching of the apostles.

Having a Bible alone, is like finding a book telling us where to look for the treasure but without the instruction on how to decipher the message there in.

God bless.
 
The best reason I can think of is that the position isn’t Biblical. It is a self-contradictory principle.
 
@Merrikay

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

Bible Alone or Bible Plus Tradition?

1Cor 11:2 – hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2Thess 2:15 – hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2Thess 3:6 – shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 – not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 – heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 – Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 – follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 – what you heard entrust to faithful men
2Pet 1:20 – no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2Pet 3:15-16 – Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1Pet 1:25 – God’s eternal word = word preached to you
Rom 10:17 – faith come from what is heard
1Cor 15:1-2 – being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 – go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 – chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
 
Hi all. First post here! I’m a cradle

One of the biggest questions I struggle with is the title, being raised to rely on the Bible alone for answers, and knowing common verses that protestants cite in defense of this… just as I ask, why not Sola Scriptura? Thanks in advance!
Several posters mentioned “Tradition”…there is what we call apostolic tradition or “Sacred Tradition”…here is an article for further reading…Mark P. Shea: What is Sacred Tradition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top