A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).

"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

LOL... FR is hardly the website to post *this* argument on. We do not not need some official interpreters strutting around in robes to tell us what either document says. 'Sola Scriptura' is strict constructionism of the Bible.

?"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you"

Seeing that this was commanded before the New Testament was written should it be disregarded? Or should we accept it as more commands from the Lord to be kept?

If you are unwilling and/or unable to comprehend the fact that the Old and New Testaments are one Word, and that your comprehension of time doesn't have any effect on the compound unity of the Logos, why would I waste my time trying to explain anything to you?

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

BK,
The Bible teaches the Apostles were laid as a foundation
for the Church. It does not teach we are to have continual
Apostles living on earth [anywhere I can see].

“Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of
the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is
Christ Jesus himself.” Eph 2:20

SO...I would ask you the reverse.

Where does the Bible teach there will always be
Apostles living on the earth?

Where is a selection criteria laid out?

If you use the criteria listed in Acts, when a replacement
for Judas was chosen, it had to be someone who had been
with them from the beginning. Anyone around today that meets
that criteria?

I think not.

Later, completely apart from any action the early Church
took, Jesus Christ Himself appeared to the Apostle Paul
and chose him. Paul was not even a believer when Christ
appeared to him.

Do you believe the Lord will always supernaturally appear
and choose an additional Apostle? Will He continue to choose
non-Christians to become Apostles? In the tradition that
claims Apostolic authority, I do not see either the casting
of the lots (Book of Acts method) nor the Supernatural
appearance of the Lord to choose a non-Christian to become
and Apostle...

[It is worth considering that the Apostle Paul was chosen
while there were already 12 other Apostles living, as far
as we know. That makes 13. So it isn’t like there was a
vacancy...]

Why are there not 12 Apostles, each chosen supernaturally
before they became Christians - directly by the Lord - at
this point in history?

That is the best I can do to respond to your question.

best and Happy New Year,
ampu

PS - You didn’t ask about Apostolic Authority continuing
by the original Apostles who live today, so I will put
that off for another thread.

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

Of course this whole piece is a big mess but I couldn't resist refuting this ridiculous paragraph in light of what the scripture actually teaches...

2Ti 1:14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Now compare what God says to the stuff your religion puts out...You guys think you can understand God's words without God...

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

Oh brother...Moses taught out of a book...The scripture...Jesus said 'it is written' 63 times...

The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

Sorry Charlie...The bible hasn't collapsed...The only things that collapsed are your religion and your tradition...The bible is still standing, with it's one leg...

"If you are unwilling and/or unable to comprehend the fact that the Old and New Testaments are one Word, and that your comprehension of time doesn't have any effect on the compound unity of the Logos"

Indeed there is no time as far as God is concerned but the effect of eternal truth being revealed to to the human mind does play out in time as far as human realities are concerned.

The Logos had no prblem with that reality:

Mt:5:21:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (KJV)

First, the Apostles and Jesus cited scripture as authoritative. When Jesus Himself argued with Satan, he quoted scripture. That, at a minimum, means a tradition cannot contradict scripture.

So if a church says Mary was taken up to heaven without tasting death, well...the scripture is silent, so believe what you want.

OTOH, when a church says Mary remained a virgin forever, well...there are multiple passages that indicate otherwise. If you choose to believe it REALLY meant cousin, I cannot stop you, but I expect you to understand why I reject what you say.

And when a church rules that a bishop (elder) must be single, that contradicts scripture. Again, I cannot prevent you from believing it, but you ought to understand why I reject it and the church that makes the claim.

Not all prophecies were written down and accepted as scripture. That doesn’t make them false, but if they contradict the scriptures, THEN they are false.

Also, there is no continuing revelation to the church. Paul told the elders in Acts 20 that he taught the whole counsel of God - not part, with some hidden. And John told Christians in 2 John to “abide in the teaching of Christ”.

If you wish to add other teaching (Papal Supremacy, Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc), I cannot stop you. But for me, I’ll be content to abide in the whole counsel of God as taught by the Apostles.

St. Augustine City of God book XI Chapter 3

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life ...
Source: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book II, Chap. 9,

Chapter1, #3 ... I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.
Letter 82 From Augustine to Jerome.

For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,謡hile there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,耀till, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,葉he faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable.
Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen.), by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria; and Doctor of the Church; about 318 A.D.

that Sola Scriptura without guidance of tradition or the Holy Spirit is prone to be abused. It is the root of the phrase ‘you can prove anything with the Bible’.

Well, let's look what "Tradition" can do.

In the Catholic Church, it means Mary is your Salvation:

UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX: "For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation."

Note: By Tradition, Pope Pius IX made Mary ALL your Salvation, ALL your Hope and ALL your Grace - Not the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what happens when Sola Scriptura is not applied. Tradtion overwrites Scripture.

Athanasius wrote:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6)

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:

“For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (Lecture 4:17)

"Ecclesiastical Authority is ALSO a Circular Position. Why can’t you folks SEE that!"

I see it but so far that just puts me in line for crap if I ask either group something. I've been informed that if I don't understand a specific interpretation in light of another verse, I'm just blind due to not having faith. Those blind Bereans should have been told that, they could have spent a lot more time watching football.

I've also been informed that if I just took the word of the Church for it I'd be OK whether I understand it or not. So, it seems like Faith alone is equally important to both groups since both sometimes assert that unless you shut up and agree with them you have no Faith. I still don't get why it isn't Grace alone rather than Faith alone but, whatever.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.