Another argument for Sola Scriptura


#1

I know we see these all the time, but I’ve never heard this argument. My friend was telling me about it. Perhaps I could get some help.

Obviously, the most effective argument against scripture alone is that scripture does not claim it. I need no help here.

But on the issue of the canon, this argument seemed to catch me off guard:
“The apostles approved the canon themselves. They gave the authority on the list of books. By 100 AD there was a definitive list. After the death of the last apostle, sola Scriptura took effect.”

Any thoughts on it? Easy answers or refutations?


#2

Well, Christ gave the Apostles the ability to pass on their power to other people (hence, the Catholic hierarchy). Therefore, the “Apostles” still rule to this day, through priests, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope.


#3

[quote=trumpet152]But on the issue of the canon, this argument seemed to catch me off guard:
“The apostles approved the canon themselves. They gave the authority on the list of books. By 100 AD there was a definitive list. After the death of the last apostle, sola Scriptura took effect.”

Any thoughts on it? Easy answers or refutations?
[/quote]

Ask your antagonist to back up his claim. Ask him to document it, with evidence from 100 AD. Ask him to explain the documented disputes over the canon, which persisted until at least Nicea.

Asserting something with no evidence isn’t argument. It’s bluster. Call him on it.


#4

This is something I posted in another thread that may help:

Sola scriptura goes against the Bible itself!

Scripture tells us that Christ founded a Church with divine authority to govern in His name. Here are just a few examples:

*Matthew 16
13: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
14: And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20: Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Matthew 18
18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 10
16: And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.*

The Bible also tells us to follow Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture:

*2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you 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 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.*

The doctrine of sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact it tells us that we need more than the Bible alone. The Bible confirms that we must also hold fast to oral tradition, the preached word of God:

*2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Jn 21:25 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.

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

1 Cointh 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

1 Peter 1:25: but the word of the Lord abides for ever." That word is the good news which was preached to you.*

In fact, St. Peter goes so far as to say that Sacred Scripture can be difficult to interpret, strongly implying that we need an authoritative interpreter:

2 Peter
15: And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Finally Timothy tells us that it is the Church that is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”.

1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Continued…


#5

This is exactly why the Catholic Church values Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. To do anything else goes against what the Bible tells us and good old common sense.

Any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret it. Otherwise, chaos would reign as everyone interpreted the document according to his own personal whim. Thus, your 6000 plus protestant denominations in this country.

The Founding Fathers of this country put together a magnificent document to authoritatively determine how this country would be governed: the US Constitution. They also founded a continuing living authority to guard, guarantee, and be official interpreters of it: The Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers knew that without any living authority over the Constitution there would be endless division in this country as each person became their own interpreter. If the Founding Fathers wouldn’t leave something as important as the US Constitution without any authoritative body, do you really think God would? There is no way He would have left anything written to be the only rule if faith without a living continuous authority to guard and officially interpret it.

It if for these reasons the fullness of truth must stand on thee legs, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magestarium. You don’t need to be an astrophysicist to see what happens when one or two of those legs are pulled out from underneath what God left for us.


#6

If, after the death of the last apostle, sola scriptura took effect, then there should be a definitive list produced by the apostles (or perhaps by the last living apostle, St. John.) I’m thinking that John would have had to produce the list himself, since he wrote last, but I’m not aware of any such list by him.

Also, one would think that, if that were the case, Christians should, from that moment on–the death of John–have devoted themselves almost entirely to producing bibles. But they didn’t. They continued to preach, for the most part. And they continued to use the writings of the apostles and evangelists in their liturgies. (As we do today.) And they continued to refer disputed matters to the bishop of Rome.

But even if sola scriptura were a good rule of faith, what good would it do me? I can’t sit down and by going through the bible, produce a list of undisputed doctrines. Someone else, doing the same thing, will dispute my conclusions and produce a different list of doctrines.

And even less would it do me any good if I were not literate, which has been the case with the majority of people throughout history.

If only the bible is the rule of faith, and I must be literate to read the bible, then at least one work is required to be saved: the ability to read.


#7

[quote=trumpet152] “The apostles approved the canon themselves. They gave the authority on the list of books. By 100 AD there was a definitive list. After the death of the last apostle, sola Scriptura took effect.”
[/quote]

Where does the bible say that?? :smiley:

LOL!

-Jason


#8

[quote=trumpet152]I know we see these all the time, but I’ve never heard this argument. My friend was telling me about it. Perhaps I could get some help.

Obviously, the most effective argument against scripture alone is that scripture does not claim it. I need no help here.

But on the issue of the canon, this argument seemed to catch me off guard:
“The apostles approved the canon themselves. They gave the authority on the list of books. By 100 AD there was a definitive list. After the death of the last apostle, sola Scriptura took effect.”

Any thoughts on it? Easy answers or refutations?
[/quote]

He has to show the list from the apostles. It is not in the bible. It is not in any first century writings. Still, even if it was in a first century extrabiblical book, that is not biblical therefore it is not divinely inspired. Therefore the list could be false. Ask him to show you the quote. I would show him that Irenaeus does not list Apocalypse as scripture. Or for that matter several of the epistles of the new testament.


#9

The Founding Fathers of this country put together a magnificent document to authoritatively determine how this country would be governed: the US Constitution. They also founded a continuing living authority to guard, guarantee, and be official interpreters of it: The Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers knew that without any living authority over the Constitution there would be endless division in this country as each person became their own interpreter. If the Founding Fathers wouldn’t leave something as important as the US Constitution without any authoritative body, do you really think God would? There is no way He would have left anything written to be the only rule if faith without a living continuous authority to guard and officially interpret it.
It if for these reasons the fullness of truth must stand on thee legs, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magestarium. You don’t need to be an astrophysicist to see what happens when one or two of those legs are pulled out from underneath what God left for us.

Hi
One problem here, the same “supreme court” you mentioned here also say’s it’s ok to have an abortion, and will some day say it’s ok for homosexuals to get married and I don’t think that the founding fathers would agree with that.
Thanks.


#10

What is it with all this Sola Scripture alone stuff?[
http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/yell.gif](“javascript: void(0);”)

WHERE in Scripture does it say “only Scripture alone”?[images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/10_confused.gif](“javascript: void(0);”)[
](“javascript: void(0);”)


#11

[quote=NonDenom]Hi
One problem here, the same “supreme court” you mentioned here also say’s it’s ok to have an abortion, and will some day say it’s ok for homosexuals to get married and I don’t think that the founding fathers would agree with that.
Thanks.
[/quote]

The founding fathers of the US did not have the greatest guide of all though, The Holy Spirit. Christ promised that His Spirit would be with the Church and that what they bound would be bound in heaven and what they loosed would be loosed. Christ never promised a book, He promised a Church. Nowhere in the bible does it suggest or support sola scriptura, in fact it supports spoken tradition. Christ left His Spirit to guide His Church, and it has not erred in 2000 years.


#12

[quote=NonDenom]Hi
One problem here, the same “supreme court” you mentioned here also say’s it’s ok to have an abortion, and will some day say it’s ok for homosexuals to get married and I don’t think that the founding fathers would agree with that.
Thanks.
[/quote]

Quiz time. Who said the following quotes?

*“I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice.”

" … It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world …"*

Answer: James Iredell and John Jay, two of the original Supreme Court justices.

Many of today’s justices have fallen victim to what Mr. Iredell was afraid of. That’s what happens when you try to determine morality without putting God’s law first.

Only the Catholic Church can be infallible on matters of faith and morals, not the Supreme Court because it is clearly NOT under the guide of the Holy Spirit. That’s why the original Supreme Court justices valued God’s law so much, so they could make sound judgments.

I do believe even today the Supreme Court serves this country and protects the Constitution well, so long as they don’t try to legislate from the bench. It is better than the view of “make whatever you want of it” like protestants do with the Bible.

You do realize why the Bible was canonized 1600 years ago, don’t you? It was not so we could all sit and read it in our living rooms. Not that I have any problem with people privately reading it, but that was not the intension. Why do you think it is organized the way it is? ** It was for the liturgy of the Mass! ** It was intended to be only read during the celebration of the Mass followed by instruction from the Priest in the form of a Homily on what was read, and thus ensure proper interpretation and moral instruction.

Just because most people are literate today and the Bible is readily available in print, does not mean we can just kick the sound teaching of the Magisterium in the trash heap along with the altar of almighty God used in the celebration of Mass. However, humanity just can’t seem to resist this temptation.


#13

[quote=IanS]You do realize why the Bible was canonized 1600 years ago, don’t you? It was not so we could all sit and read it in our living rooms. Not that I have any problem with people privately reading it, but that was not the intension. Why do you think it is organized the way it is? ** It was for the liturgy of the Mass! ** It was intended to be only read during the celebration of the Mass followed by instruction from the Priest in the form of a Homily on what was read, and thus ensure proper interpretation and moral instruction.

Just because most people are literate today and the Bible is readily available in print, does not mean we can just kick the sound teaching of the Magisterium in the trash heap along with the altar of almighty God used in the celebration of Mass. However, humanity just can’t seem to resist this temptation.
[/quote]

Actually, the Canon of Scripture was declared at the Council of Trent.

Secondly, if the Bible was “not intended to be read privately”, why would you have no problem with it?

I would have to assume that your meaning is that God “did not intend” for the Bible to be used this way. If that is your meaning, then why would you have “no problem” with this unintended use?

Peace,
Richard


#14

[quote=NonDenom]Hi
One problem here, the same “supreme court” you mentioned here also say’s it’s ok to have an abortion, and will some day say it’s ok for homosexuals to get married and I don’t think that the founding fathers would agree with that.
Thanks.
[/quote]

This does not invalidate the analogy. In fact, your argument confirms the need for an appropriate authoritative body. You seem to concede the point that the Constitution does not interpret itself. The same is true of the Bible. Hence - the teaching authority of the church.

To extend the analogy, if we all could interpret the Constitution personally, there would be no uniformity in the law - each state, each county, each municipality, each individual, would in effect be their own final authority or “Supreme Court justice” on matters of constitutionality, doing whatever they independently determined the Constitution allowed. Some states/counties/cities would allow abortion, euthenasia, gay “marriage,” commercially motivated eminent domain, etc., while others would ban all sorts of civil liberties like religious speech, travel, commerce, etcetera. The concept holds the potential for real anarchy.

Much like the shape of post reformation christianity. :frowning:


#15

[quote=NonDenom]Hi
One problem here, the same “supreme court” you mentioned here also say’s it’s ok to have an abortion, and will some day say it’s ok for homosexuals to get married and I don’t think that the founding fathers would agree with that.
Thanks.
[/quote]

I think the point was that there is a document to follow, and leadership in place in an effort to ensure that the document is interpreted the same way every time . You don’t see a bunch of little supreme courts on every street corner each claiming to interpret the constitution correctly yet each interpreting it a little differently. That’s what sola scriptura has done with the bible. :whacky:

It’s actually a good analogy albeit the One True Church has the advantage of having God lead it. I guess congress is doing the best it can without that kind of leadership. :rolleyes:


#16

IanS you beat me to 1st Tim 3:15.

Where does the bible say that the bible is the sole rule of authority on faith? It doesn’t.

What DOES the bible say? Read 1st Tim 3:15. It says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. A pillar holds things up and a bulwark protects. The Church upholds and protects the Truth. Not the bible.

Something worth mentioning: The bible came out of the Church. The Church did not come out of the Bible.


#17

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]Actually, the Canon of Scripture was declared at the Council of Trent.

Secondly, if the Bible was “not intended to be read privately”, why would you have no problem with it?

I would have to assume that your meaning is that God “did not intend” for the Bible to be used this way. If that is your meaning, then why would you have “no problem” with this unintended use?

Peace,
Richard
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

Actually, the Canon of Scripture was declared at the council of Rome in 382 and again at the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. You can check the canons of those councils if you like.
I don’t get why Protestants always–and I do mean ALWAYS–claim that the Church “added” the Deuterocanonicals to the Bible at Trent. I don’t know who first came up with that claim, but it is completely false. What Trent did was not to create a canon of Scripture; what Trent did was to RE-AFFIRM the SAME canon of Scripture in the face of NEW OPPOSITION from Protestants. Trent simply said “These books have always been part of Scripture and the issue is not open to debate”. That’s what happened at Trent.

I think that the Bible was intended for people to read (afterall, Paul does say that all Scripture is beneficial to read), but not to INTERPRET privately. That is what the Church is for. One has only to look at the, what, 35,000 Protestant denominations to see that clearly that is NOT what Christ intended. But I guess sola scriptura is the way to go…:rolleyes:

In Christ,
Rand

In Christ,
Rand


#18

There are two tapes that cover this topic. They are free from the following website. They are very, very good. Please get them and listen to them. You’ll be glad you did

www.biblechristiansociety.com

Order tapes/CD’s entitled “One Church” and “Sola Scriptura”


#19

[quote=Rand Al’Thor]Peace be with you!

Actually, the Canon of Scripture was declared at the council of Rome in 382 and again at the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. You can check the canons of those councils if you like.

In Christ,
Rand

[/quote]

I will look into this again.

Peace to you,
Richard


#20

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]I will look into this again.

Peace to you,
Richard
[/quote]

Actually, Richard, you were not entirely incorrect in stating that Trent declared the canon. Trent affirmed the canon already received at Hippo and Carthage in the 4th Century.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.