Sola Scriptura

[Dave]

Sola Scriptura means, "If it is not in the Bible, I will not believe it." Ask a Protestant if he believes in Sola Scriptura. If he/she says "yes," then ask, "By what authority do you believe this?" In order for anyone to practice Sola Scripture, then the Scripture for believing that doctrine must be found in the Bible, or else how can they believe it? They will invariably point to 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by GOD, and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of GOD may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let us use our good old "common sense" and examine these verses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Q. Does verse 16 say 'ONLY' Scripture? No, it says 'ALL' Scripture. Now just what does this mean? What is 'ALL' Scripture? 2Timothy was written by St. Paul at about 65-66 A.D., since he was martyred soon after in 67 A.D.. What Scripture did Paul refer to? What Scripture was available to Timothy at this early time in Christianity?

A. During the first century, the Scripture used by the early Christians was the Old Testament. It was a Jewish work known as the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew O.T. into Greek, the language used in the whole region at the time. There was no New Testament for hundreds of years until the 'Council of Carthage' in 397, assembled the individual 27 books into what we now have. So if you believe in 2Tim 3:16-17, as the authority for Sola Scriptura, then you have to throw out the New Testament and make do with the Old. That is called 'Judaism'. By the way, the Septuagint included the Apocrypha, called Deuterocanonicals by Catholics, the seven books of the O.T. not included in protestant Bibles. Now fundamentalists are put in the awkward position of having to accept the Apocrypha if they cling to 2Tim 3:16-17.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Q. But weren't there were a few N.T. books written by the time Paul wrote 2 Tim?

A. Some of Paul's letters were written before 2 Tim, and Mark about 50-65, and Luke in the early 60's. But none of these were in use at the time. Besides, this whole question becomes moot if you back up and read 2Tim 3:15, "For from your infancy you have known the Sacred Writings.." If Paul wrote 2Tim in 66, and Timothy was then a Bishop, then Timothy in his infancy, pushed the time back to around 36, many years before the first N.T. book was written. Again it was the O.T. only, that Paul had to have referred to at that time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Q. How can it be O.T. only? Did not the Apostles teach about Jesus Christ and all that He had done?

A. You are absolutely right. They followed to the letter, the command of the Lord in Mt 28:20, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." Did Jesus command that the Apostles should write a book? No, He said go out and teach. Now what does this mean? How about 'Tradition'? The Apostles taught of Jesus Christ by word of mouth, handing down what they had been taught, verbally. That is a very good explanation of the meaning of Tradition. Read the Acts of the Apostles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Q. What about 'useful for teaching'?

A. Useful? Yes! Use 'only' the Bible for teaching and nothing else? No! After all, a screwdriver is useful for putting in screws but another tool is needed to hammer a nail. Paul does not say Scripture is the 'only' means of teaching.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Q. But verse 17 said the man of GOD may be perfect, equipped for every good work.

A. Yes, but who is the 'man of GOD'. Don't forget, Paul is addressing Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus, and truly a 'man of GOD'. A man of GOD needs Scripture to perform his 'good work'. Does it say 'fully' equipped for every good work? How about if I showed you another passage with almost the same wording, but about another subject. Would you believe that one too as being self sufficient? Look at Jam 1:4, "And let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and entire, lacking nothing." Now using the Protestant logic here, then 'patience' is all that is needed to be 'perfect', and 'entire'. Hmmm, I thought Scripture was all that was needed in 2 Timothy!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to sum it up and tie it all in a neat little package, we have to back up one more verse to 2Tim 3:14, "But do you continue in the things you have learned and that have been entrusted to you, knowing of whom you have learned them." What is this verse telling us? Paul said, 'continue in the things I have taught you'. Paul taught them orally as demonstrated time and again in Acts. He tells Timothy to continue in the traditions. If you take 2Tim 3:14-17 in context, Paul tells Timothy to keep the traditions at first, and then to use Scriptures to advantage at the end. He is saying, 'Tradition', and 'Scripture' go hand in hand. Sola Scriptura therefore is not Biblical.

Sola Scriptura is not historical either, as the 'doctrine' did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. There were no Bibles for the masses, as each one had to be hand copied by Monks. Each copy took many years to produce and they were prohibitively expensive. Even if copies were plentiful, which they weren't, the vast majority of the population of the world was illiterate and could not read them anyway. Sola Scriptura is therefore not workable, as there was no Scripture for the 'masses' to use.

The false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, first proclaimed by Martin Luther, created the 'everyone for himself' syndrome for Bible interpretation. Each individual would claim, 'the Holy Spirit told me'. This thinking flies into the face of what the Bible actually teaches, that individual interpretation of Scripture cannot be done. See Acts 8:27-39, and 2Pet 1:20, and 2Pet 3:16-18. Belief in Sola Scriptura is the primary reason for the fact that there are over 28,000 splinters in Protestantism. There can be only one truth, and yet each splinter claims, 'the Holy Spirit told me'. Each claims the truth, yet each has differences with the others. Truth is one, therefore all Churches should be united in the one truth. Are we led to believe there over 28,000 Holy Spirits, each telling a protestant sect something different, or maybe one Holy Spirit giving a different truth to each? The doctrine of Sola Scripture is clearly a false doctrine invented by mere men, and has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who believes in the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and rejects tradition, is taking away from the Word of GOD. They are therefore in violation of all of the Bible verses which admonish, "Do not add to, or take away from, the Word of GOD." Deut 4:2, 11:32, 13:1, Psa 12:7, 33:4,

Psa 50:16-17, Prov 5:7, 30:5-6, Jer 23:36, Gal 1:8, 1 Pet 1:24-25, 2 Pet 3:15-16, Rev 22:18-20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think if anyone is really serious about believing in Sola Scriptura, then he must agree that the Bible has to spell out the doctrine, or he cannot believe in it. If that is the case, then please, someone show me the verse, so I can believe in Sola Scriptura too?

[hopeful1]

can you say "booyah?" :cool:

[IXpenguin21]

yeah, i love that "Sola Scriptura" argument, because it contradicts itself..

there's nothing in the bible that says ONLY SCRIPTURE, therefore, the idea of ONLY SCRIPTURE can not be disproved by what it indends to say.

silly silly silly

[phatcatholic]

oh, but lest we are reprimanded again, don't forget that there are apparently many differnet versions of this doctrine:

Sol-A-Scriptura

Sol-E-Scriptura

Sol-I-Scriptura

Sol-O-Scriptura

Sol-U-Scriptura

Sol-and sometimes Y-Scriptura

make sure you stay on top of ur vowel sounds.....

[God Conquers]

ahem.... that's Bouya.

[Archangel]

bamp

[thicke]

oh, but lest we are reprimanded again, don't forget that there are apparently many differnet versions of this doctrine:

Sol-A-Scriptura

Sol-E-Scriptura

Sol-I-Scriptura

Sol-O-Scriptura

Sol-U-Scriptura

Sol-and sometimes Y-Scriptura

make sure you stay on top of ur vowel sounds.....

I feel like I'm in highschool Latin class all over again...MAKE IT STOP!

[dairygirl4u2c]

not everyone follows the bible as infallible. the only rational people that follow it are the ones that use it as a guide without becoming they think themselves infallible.

the bible contains truth, the bible isn't truth.

[cmotherofpirl]

What part of the Bible isn't true?

[Brother Adam]

Ooohh, a non-Catholic and a non-Christian.

Nice to meet ya'.

Why isn't the Bible infallable?

[Archangel]

I was reading at another apologetics site where a Protestant argues that the books are infallible but not the canon. He said that the bible is "a fallible collection of infallible books" and that "the canon, because it is not inspired, is fallible, but the Bible itself is infallible."

I found that strange. I believe that the councils at Carthage, Hippo, and Trent infallibly defined the canon of the bible. (It can be found at CCC 120.)

He also says that "Rome did not create the canon, God created the canon when he wrote the Bible."

Again, it comes down to authority: Who has the authority to determine which books are inspired or not? Since we do not find the canon from Jesus or the Apostles in Scripture, we need to turn to Sacred Tradition to learn the canon.

Another blow to the Sola Scriptura argument.

The original thread can be found here: http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/topic.a...age=11&ARCHIVE=

[Laudate_Dominum]

I was reading at another apologetics site where a Protestant argues that the books are infallible but not the canon. He said that the bible is "a fallible collection of infallible books" and that "the canon, because it is not inspired, is fallible, but the Bible itself is infallible."

I found that strange. I believe that the councils at Carthage, Hippo, and Trent infallibly defined the canon of the bible. (It can be found at CCC 120.)

He also says that "Rome did not create the canon, God created the canon when he wrote the Bible."

Again, it comes down to authority: Who has the authority to determine which books are inspired or not? Since we do not find the canon from Jesus or the Apostles in Scripture, we need to turn to Sacred Tradition to learn the canon.

Another blow to the Sola Scriptura argument.

The original thread can be found here: http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/topic.a...age=11&ARCHIVE=

I've heard this line of thinking too. I believe R.C. Sproul started this view and others have followed suit with him. This kind of thinking really misses the point and doesn't resolve the problems of Sola Scriptura. If you don't have an authoritative Canon, you do not know which books are Scripture, and if a book isn't Scripture it's not infallible. So how do you know which books are infallible? And if you say the standard protestant Canon you are appealing to protestant tradition as something authoritative and implicitly infallible. Otherwise the Canon itself becomes a matter of private interpretation. See what I mean, if you say that the Canon can be wrong (this statements basically says that the protestant canon is not infallible, therefore it could be wrong), then you can't really say what's infallible and what's not. I've even heard of protestants who hold this view arguing against parts of Scripture, saying they aren't actually Scripture (for example on guy wanted to remove the end of Mark's Gospel!!) So this kind of thinking is hardly a solution to the problem. Rightly though, Sproul realizes that traditional protestant approaches to Sola Scriptura do not work. That's why he's forced into this view. This consistent inconsistency is the logical conclusion of denying the authority of the Catholic Church.

[Circle_Master]

Sola Scriptura means, "If it is not in the Bible, I will not believe it." Ask a Protestant if he believes in Sola Scriptura. If he/she says "yes," then ask, "By what authority do you believe this?" In order for anyone to practice Sola Scripture, then the Scripture for believing that doctrine must be found in the Bible, or else how can they believe it? They will invariably point to 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by GOD, and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of GOD may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

Don't make up your own definitions of Sola Scripture. That is one of the worst ways to argue. If anything, quote me when I say Sola Scriptura means "The Bible is the only and ultimate authority of God's living Word on the earth today". Saying "if its not in the Bible, I will not believe it" is not true, and it sounds more islamic than protestant. Make sure you understand something before you decide to argue against it their chief.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let us use our good old "common sense" and examine these verses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Q. Does verse 16 say 'ONLY' Scripture? No, it says 'ALL' Scripture. Now just what does this mean? What is 'ALL' Scripture? 2Timothy was written by St. Paul at about 65-66 A.D., since he was martyred soon after in 67 A.D.. What Scripture did Paul refer to? What Scripture was available to Timothy at this early time in Christianity?

A. During the first century, the Scripture used by the early Christians was the Old Testament. It was a Jewish work known as the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew O.T. into Greek, the language used in the whole region at the time. There was no New Testament for hundreds of years until the 'Council of Carthage' in 397, assembled the individual 27 books into what we now have. So if you believe in 2Tim 3:16-17, as the authority for Sola Scriptura, then you have to throw out the New Testament and make do with the Old. That is called 'Judaism'. By the way, the Septuagint included the Apocrypha, called Deuterocanonicals by Catholics, the seven books of the O.T. not included in protestant Bibles. Now fundamentalists are put in the awkward position of having to accept the Apocrypha if they cling to 2Tim 3:16-17.

Problems: The Septuagint was not the only bible used in the first century church. 2/3'ds of the quotes of the NT are from it granted, but the other 1/3 are from the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a complete fallicy to say otherwise. Also it is common sense that most would use the septuagint. They spoke greek, however it is still a translation. Do you hold up your KJV, or RSV or whatever you have and say it is the bible? Yes, and so did many in the NT who possibly had copies of the LXX (septuagint). Is the RSV actually the Scripture - no. And even the Catecism states the autographs or hagiographs were the hebrew texts - not greek. And yes, the LXX included the apocrypha, and yet never were they assumed to be inspired by those that copied it, nor those that used it. The Jews always understood them to be apocryphal, and even Joseph and the council of Jamnia both affirm that. It is only 3-4 centuries later that the present organized church said they were inspired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Q. But weren't there were a few N.T. books written by the time Paul wrote 2 Tim?

A. Some of Paul's letters were written before 2 Tim, and Mark about 50-65, and Luke in the early 60's. But none of these were in use at the time. Besides, this whole question becomes moot if you back up and read 2Tim 3:15, "For from your infancy you have known the Sacred Writings.." If Paul wrote 2Tim in 66, and Timothy was then a Bishop, then Timothy in his infancy, pushed the time back to around 36, many years before the first N.T. book was written. Again it was the O.T. only, that Paul had to have referred to at that time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None were used at the time? This again is a blatant mistruth. Many were used at the time, and even in 2 Peter, Peter writes and says that Paul is writing Scripture. There is also another instance where one of the gospels is quoted by an apostle - I forget the reference at the time.

Edited February 21, 2004 by Circle_Master

[cmotherofpirl]

So circle how do you explain all the different versions?

I thought there was one faith, one baptism?

[Hananiah]

And yes, the LXX included the apocrypha, and yet never were they assumed to be inspired by those that copied it, nor those that used it. The Jews always understood them to be apocryphal.

How do you know this? Sirach is quoted in the Talmud as Scripture three times. The canonicity of the deuterocanonicals was an area of dispute among Jews until centuries after the death of Christ. To this day Ethiopian Jews consider them Scriture. For you to claim that the Jews always understood these books as apocryphal is simply bad history.

Joseph and the council of Jamnia both affirm that.

Are you a Christian or a Jew? Why would you trust a council that put an anathema on Christians? The council of Jamnia has absolutely no authority over the Christian canon. Neither does Josephus, whose canon was dependent upon that of Jamnia.

It is only 3-4 centuries later that the present organized church said they were inspired.

I can show you Church fathers in the second century quoting the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. Mind you, these were men who knew the Apostles personally.

Very good, and we have their writings today to use as tradition is never promised to be inspired, and Scripture has always been used.

2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Cor 11:2, 1 Thess 2:13

Ah yes useful, and for what?  to bring a man to completion.  So with the Holy Scriptures a man can become 100% Godly.

The man of God's completion is the result of Timothy's teaching, refutation, correction, and training. Scripture is a useful tool for this task. But Paul doesn't say it's sufficient.

And what is Catholic logic?

It's very Aristotelean. Almost mathematical. We follow in the philosophical tradition of Ss. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

That the verses are lying and contradict somehow?

No, the point is that just because Scripture says that such-and-such works towards a man's completion does not mean that it alone is sufficient to complete him.

Paul also doesn't tell Timothy to hold to 'tradition'

Yes he does. The Greek wrd is paradosis which means tradition.

Aye, do not add to.  Can we say eucharist controversy, or council of orange, or ecumenical council, or immaculate conception, or sacraments, or countless other things?

The concilar system and all seven Sacraments are taught in the Bible. The immaculate conception follows as a logical necessity from the Bible. Christ drew His humanity from His mother, and His humanity was sinless, therefore Mary's humanity was sinless.

today things such as "ex-cathedra speaking" and "solo-ecclessia" have to be invented to put authority on todays Catholic Church's teachings.

St. Peter spoke ex-cathedra multiple times in the book of Acts. Sola ecclesia is an invention of James White. It is not official Catholic teaching.