(Opposite thread) Sola-Scriptura


#1

I wanted to try what I perceived to be an interesting experiment and an exercise. I think that it is healthy, if one is to successfully argue his own perspective, to have a fair understanding of his opponent’s. That said, I would like to start an “opposite” thread, in which anyone who contributes, Protestant or Catholic, must only argue a position diametrically opposed to what he/she actually believes. I think this would be especially helpful to “new” apologists. If this idea is stupid, it’ll drop on it’s own, but if the experiment proves popular, I’ll start another “opposite thread” topic, such as sola-fide, in a week or so. Now, since I’ll assume most members of this forum are Catholic, I’ll break my own rule and post a distinctly Catholic statement to start the discussion (but as OP, I’m the only one allowed to do this). Any Protestants who respond must argue the Scripture + Tradition position. If a Catholic responds, he/she must disagree with me:

Starter prompt: Sola Scriptura is a failed foundation for any Christian who wants to truly understand Jesus’s plan for his church.


#2

I don’t think that a Catholic could, in good conscience, argue in favor of sola scriptura since such a dogma is a heresey and all error such as sola scriptura finds its source in the devil. He is author of false relgion.


#3

Where does it say on that ONLY sola-scripture is what you need ONLY iin the Bible??


#4

Hey, you gave me an idea to go start a recipe thread!!! :stuck_out_tongue:


#5

[quote=Paris Blues]Hey, you gave me an idea to go start a recipe thread!!! :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

Oh, I just did!! I forgot! Oops!

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=51646

:stuck_out_tongue:


#6

(note to LatinCat: A Catholic could do this in good conscience when the rules of the thread make clear that he doesn’t actually subscribe to that thought. I could pretend to kill someone in chess in good conscience since it is pretend and I am building intellectual skills by doing so Don’t post if you don’t want to, but please don’t ruin the thread by debating it’s validity.)

Paris, 2 Tim 3:16 tells us that, through instruction, reproof, correction, and such, the Bible makes us perfect. Why would I need anything else when I have the “perfect” word of God?


#7

Sola Scriptura is doctrine only by default.

Christ is Lord, and Him we follow.

But He rarely speaks out loud to us, so we turn to the next best thing, His Word.

God’s Word is perfect, and all that we need. Why should we put any trust in men when we have the inerrant Word of God? What could possibly be closer to God’s actual voice than His Word?

-nilevaj


#8

Yes BUT I believe it’s in 2 Thess. where it says something about hold on to Tradition!!! So why not have both?
:slight_smile:


#9

But then if we come to think of Sola Scriptura, I would have to defend the scriture that says that Jesus did so much more than all this, that all of the world could not hold all the books. Leading to Sacred Tradition… which is again mentioned in other parts of scripture.

Are non-catholic christians truly only sola scriptura or are they side stepping certain scriptures?


#10

I don’t think that this is a bad idea. It can be especially helpful to understand the other side, even if you vehemently disagree, in order to debate.

I just need a little time to think of my arguements.:slight_smile:


#11

It’s not a bad idea after all.

In the meantime, it will help me understand the Catholic view of it! :stuck_out_tongue:


#12

[quote=Paris Blues]Yes BUT I believe it’s in 2 Thess. where it says something about hold on to Tradition!!! So why not have both?
:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Yes, there are many places where Catholics like to point out that the word “tradition” appears as support, but this tradition existed only during the apostolic era. After that, since revelation was complete, all that was necessary for salvation had been committed to the written word. After all, as 1 Cor. 4:6 tells us, we are not to go beyond “what is written”. As my brother in Christ javelin put it, men are fallible, so all we can trust are those things we know to have been recorded during the apostolic era.


#13

[quote=awfulthings9]Yes, there are many places where Catholics like to point out that the word “tradition” appears as support, .
[/quote]

Hey! Words you say?? I KNOW non-Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity yet the word “Trinity” ain’t found in Scripture!! Eh? :thumbsup:


#14

[quote=awfulthings9](note to LatinCat: A Catholic could do this in good conscience when the rules of the thread make clear that he doesn’t actually subscribe to that thought. I could pretend to kill someone in chess in good conscience since it is pretend and I am building intellectual skills by doing so Don’t post if you don’t want to, but please don’t ruin the thread by debating it’s validity.)

Paris, 2 Tim 3:16 tells us that, through instruction, reproof, correction, and such, the Bible makes us perfect. Why would I need anything else when I have the “perfect” word of God?
[/quote]

Because St. Paul says, “Hold fast to the traditions that were handed on to you either in writting or by word of mouth”.

Beside the verse that you mentioned does not say that only scpriture is useful in makeing a man perfect. Furthermore, the verse only says that scpriture is “useful” in making a man perfect, not sufficient.


#15

[quote=Paris Blues]Hey! Words you say?? I KNOW non-Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity yet the word “Trinity” ain’t found in Scripture!! Eh? :thumbsup:
[/quote]

Trinity is just a word. Called it whatever you want the Scriptures are still explicit in its existence. However, we aren’t debating a mere “word” with sola-Scripture. Call it whatever you want, as well - what I am saying is that Scripture, such as the verse I pointed out, emphatically defends the written word of God as the final say. After all, didn’t Christ tell the Jews to “search the Scriptures” when they needed affirmation of what people were “orally” saying about him being the Messiah? Why did he refer them to Scripture as the plumb-line here if it didn’t trump tradition?


#16

We still hear the words of the apostles today, through the Traditions that were given to us. When things were going well in the early Church, they didn’t write about it because there was no need to… what is written is when there were problems so more explanation was needed.

Sola Scriptura is really not practiced by protestants… every group looks at scripture through their own lenses of the tradition that they’ve established in the replacement for that which they’ve rejected

(taken from The Journey Home)


#17

[quote=awfulthings9]Yes, there are many places where Catholics like to point out that the word “tradition” appears as support, but this tradition existed only during the apostolic era. After that, since revelation was complete, all that was necessary for salvation had been committed to the written word. After all, as 1 Cor. 4:6 tells us, we are not to go beyond “what is written”. As my brother in Christ javelin put it, men are fallible, so all we can trust are those things we know to have been recorded during the apostolic era.
[/quote]

Your public profile list NA as your religion so I am going to guess that you are not Catholic. Aren’t you supposed to argue the opposite of what you actually believe?


#18

(LatinCat, you are supposed to argue opposite of your actual beliefs. Since you are arguing against Sola Scriptura, does that mean you are truly a believer in it? -Peace, javelin)


#19

[quote=LatinCat]Because St. Paul says, “Hold fast to the traditions that were handed on to you either in writting or by word of mouth”.
[/quote]

But where do you get the idea that the “traditions” he is talking about are pivotal to our salvation? Also, these oral teachings certainly didn’t include goofy Catholic doctrines like Purgatory, as these developed well after Apostolic times.

Everything that the Apostles taught that was important to our salvation was committed to the written Word by one of the Inspired Authors. Nothing else is important. It may be edifying or useful to some people of faith, but certainly not requisite for salvation.

[quote=LatinCat] Beside the verse that you mentioned does not say that only scpriture is useful in makeing a man perfect. Furthermore, the verse only says that scpriture is “useful” in making a man perfect, not sufficient.
[/quote]

You don’t think that the Word of God is useful for making a man perfect?!? But the word of pope so-and-so (pick one) is?!?

-nilevaj

(Please don’t take offense anyone! :o -javelin)


#20

[quote=Loboto-Me]Sola Scriptura is really not practiced by protestants… every group looks at scripture through their own lenses of the tradition that they’ve established in the replacement for that which they’ve rejected
[/quote]

Who are you to say what I believe? Sola Scriptura is very much in practice in my church. God is our ultimate authority and we access His wisdom through prayerful study of His Word, in union with the Holy Spirit we were blessed with when we gave our lives to Him.

We all have direct access to Christ now that the veil of the temple was torn. We don’t need a theocratic beurocracy to find the Truth – we get it from Jesus Himself, through His Spirit who abides in every true believer.

-nilevaj


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.