Rediculous supports for sola scriptura


#1

reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_issue1.html


#2

How does one refute this…

Hahn, Kreeft, Matatics, and others contend that the fact that “the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the Church, to teach them”[7] is a serious blow to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Moreover, Hahn claims that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is improbable, since it had “no single defender for the first thirteen centuries of the church” (i.e., Hahn: “Is it really the case that for fourteen centuries the Holy Spirit could guide no one to see the formal principle of the Reformation?”[8] ). Though I maintain that such historical claims are false,[9] this is beyond our current question. Nevertheless, this “unhistorical” objection fails for other reasons. First, even if we grant the truth of the historical claim, the objection still assumes a very truncated view of church history. Most of those who present this argument speak of the church as beginning in the first century, and simply ignore church doctrine in the Old Testament. By narrowing the scope of history, the issue, deceptively, appears to be large. As seen above, if we mark church history from the beginning of covenant history as Scripture itself does, and readily find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from the very beginning of time, then Roman Catholic teaching is aberrant in the history of redemption, and accordingly should be rejected.

Secondly, the “unhistorical” objection suffers from a common malady in church history; the view that the current age is the peak of church history. Again granting the historical claims of the objection for the sake of argument, Sola Scriptura only appears to be unhistorical if we are very near the end of time. If, however, we have another five thousand or so years to go and the Roman Catholic church dissolves and joyously becomes Reformed in the next one hundred years, then its current teaching is clearly unhistorical. Hence, the “unhistorical” objection fails apart from its dubious historical claims due to a very truncated view of history (on both ends).

**C. *Sola Scriptura ***is Illogical or Incoherent

Various objections can be grouped under this heading; they all attempt to refute Sola Scriptura by means of an internal logical flaw.[10] Some Roman Catholic opponents argue that Sola Scriptura is unreasonable because (1) it demands a closed canon, but Scripture never specifies what books are actually included in that canon, and/or (2) it requires self-authentication, but as Hahn contends, “no book can authenticate its own inspired status.”[11] Both arguments assume that God cannot or does not authenticate His own Word, apart from some human testimony. This is false as per Hebrews 6:13, but it also belies a very deficient view of God in that, though He is supposedly all sovereign, he requires human testimony to confirm His Word. On a view which better acknowledges the sovereign authority of God, the church did not determine what to include in the canon; it merely recognized the canon inherent in God’s Word from the start. By analogy, John the Baptist did not make Jesus the Christ by testifying to Him; he merely recognized Christ’s glorious status, and the church later recognized the Shepherd speaking to His people in the Scriptures (John 10:4,16). Moreover, those who raise this objection have yet to demonstrate how their claims for the authority of the church withstand the same objection.[12] Therefore, this general objection does not tell against Sola Scriptura at all.

%between%


#3

D. Sola Scriptura is Impractical

A final Roman Catholic objection is the claim that *Sola Scriptura *is false because it leads to denominational anarchy: “private interpretation leads to denominationalism. Let five hundred people interpret the Bible without Church authority and there will soon be five hundred denominations. But [this] is an intolerable scandal by Scriptural standards (cf. Jn. 17: 20-23 and I Cor. 1:10-17).”[13] First, this objection assumes, as many Roman Catholic arguments do, that Biblical unity is identical to institutional unity, as opposed to unity in truth. The Roman Catholic assumption about unity implies that we would be in a superior situation even if we had, for example, one corrupt church, and a hundred fruitful denominations agreeing in doctrine. Secondly, it assumes that the mere exercise of “church authority” genuinely resolves doctrinal differences instead of just judiciously obliterating them. Thirdly, and most importantly, it fails simply because it begs-the-question by assuming the falsity of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura simply precludes the type of institution assumed by the objection. If Sola Scriptura is indeed God’s design for His people, then this objection attacks God’s plan itself. Hence, this objection should be jettisoned.

In all, then, none of these objections succeeds. They each fall prey to simple fallacies. Though I believe I have met my burden by providing arguments which demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is the teaching and practice of the Old and New Testaments, my next step might be to close out my case by going on to refute Catholic arguments for the claim that God has provided an infallible interpreter to explicate His Word to His people. But such arguments are Mr. Matatics’ burden, and so I will await his response for that opportunity.[14]

This again is seriosuly starting to test my faith…
%between%


#4

Part C is stupid. It implies that anyone who reads each individual book of the Bible will automatically know it is the inspired Word of God. That’s just flat out false. Luther read James and thought it was bunk, for example.


#5

Why is that testing your faith? It says absolutely nothing. Look at the fruits of Sola Scriptura. It was invented in 1517. Before then, there were only Catholics and Orthodox. Since then there became 36,000 denominations disagreeing on things as basic as free will, need for baptism, and once saved always saved.


#6

Again form the top, the guy simply blows off the fact that nowhere before the Reformation was sola scriptura taught. This guy has convinced himself, but that’s it.


#7

Valt, stop reading Protestant websites.


#8

[quote=challenger]Valt, stop reading Protestant websites.
[/quote]

This was given to me in responce for my 21 refutations of Sola Scriptura, I didn’t go looking for it…


#9

The fact that sola scriptura is impractical is plainly enough seen when we consider the fruit which it has harvested.


#10

[quote=Genesis315]Part C is stupid. It implies that anyone who reads each individual book of the Bible will automatically know it is the inspired Word of God. That’s just flat out false. Luther read James and thought it was bunk, for example.
[/quote]

I’ve been pointing out to some Protestants here as well about that. Muslims who read the Bible use it against Christianity, surprisingly. Does sola scriptura contend they’re right as well then? See the flaws of this unbiblical notion. It gets even harder to support it in the face of history–which it also tries to disprove.


#11

I read Point D. He says the points of the Catholic position are false, but offers no counter arguments. Amazing. Like someone said, he just go against the Catholic position because it’s, well, Catholic.


#12

Please understand that not all Protestants go for “sola scriptura” becuase they feel more enlightened than you. Sometimes we do it out of being hurt by a local RC denomination, and lose faith in man’s ability to wield the power that God handed down. I would urge you to read my “To Max Kolbe” post.


#13

[quote=ScottH]Please understand that not all Protestants go for “sola scriptura” becuase they feel more enlightened than you. Sometimes we do it out of being hurt by a local RC denomination, and lose faith in man’s ability to wield the power that God handed down. I would urge you to read my “To Max Kolbe” post.
[/quote]

I don’t know, I think I’m just through with christianity period, all this **** is tearing me apart, I can’t take it anymore!!!..


#14

the fact of the matter is many protestants can’t agree on the true nature of sola scriptura


#15

[quote=ScottH]Please understand that not all Protestants go for “sola scriptura” becuase they feel more enlightened than you. Sometimes we do it out of being hurt by a local RC denomination, and lose faith in man’s ability to wield the power that God handed down. I would urge you to read my “To Max Kolbe” post.
[/quote]

Making it personal and blaming the Church for it makes it right then? I’ve read your thread to Max; if nothing else, it doesn’t convince me to leave the Church or go on rebellion simply because a priest who happens to be less than holy came into one’s life. There are priests like that, just as there are Protestant pastors like that. To take what you posted there to its conclusion, you would change affiliation then if you have a pastor who is like the priest you met earlier. The tragedy then falls on the person who can’t move on, and not on the Church.


#16

[quote=Valtiel]I don’t know, I think I’m just through with christianity period, all this **** is tearing me apart, I can’t take it anymore!!!..
[/quote]

More fruits of sola scriptura.

Trust Jesus. Trust His Church. You’ll be fine.:slight_smile:


#17

[quote=Valtiel]I don’t know, I think I’m just through with christianity period, all this **** is tearing me apart, I can’t take it anymore!!!..
[/quote]

I’m with you. I’m trading in my Crucifix for a Budda Doll.
Besides, they have no bible to argue over. And, If I screw up this life, I get an unlimited supply of new ones.
As the Prot’s say, who cares if it’s true or false, I feel good about it. Or was that the Mormons?


#18

[quote=Valtiel]I don’t know, I think I’m just through with christianity period, all this **** is tearing me apart, I can’t take it anymore!!!..
[/quote]

Think this is bad. Wait til you become a Baptist, and a Churches-of-Christ member gets hold of you!
Or, you become a Sheite Muslim and a Sunni Muslim gets a hold of you.
Or, you become an athiest, and God gets a hold of you.

I did the easy thing. I found the oldest recorded Church, then decided Christ wouldn’t make a prostitute out of His Bride. Finally, I read the OT and found that no matter how crappy the Jews behaved or deviated, no one started a new religion, they just fixed up the original.
Then Christ came, gave miracles, and started a fulfilled religion of Grace. Since then no one has given miracles or resurrected Himself to convince me he can start a new religion.
The Jewish religion was hierarchial, and the one Christ started was hierarchial, which is the very same way the Catholic Church existed from Christ to today
Finally, "MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED."
NO prot church believes any such thing.
.


#19

That’s the Doug Jones vs. Gerry Matatics debate from Antithesis magazine, originally appearing 1990 I believe. Scott Hahn took this essay apart line by line in a 1992 tape series called “The Bible Alone?” Its very poor reasoning from Jones as demonstrated by Hahn in this tape series, and Matatics responds well in that debate. A much better and more reasonable presentation is found in the book The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison.

Looks like the whole Jones vs. Matatics debate is online.

Phil P


#20

The article you posted is actually part of an exchange. The Catholic response can be found here.


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.