Sola scriptura challenge

**Here’s a challenge for all adherents of the doctrine of sola scriptura. **

Since you use only the Bible in forming your doctrine and no traditions of men, please answer the following question with Bible verses only. No arguments. No polemics. No explaining what this or that verse “actually means” or what conclusion we ought to derive from it. Let your answer be only in the form of relevant Bible verses. And then the rest of us can see for ourselves whether the Bible alone supports the “Bible alone” position.

Question: What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

Remember: Bible verses only please.

You do not understand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not dispense with either the church or traditions.

You are getting confused with Solo Scriptura - which most sola scripturists do not agree with.

The challenge is not about whether you think I understand sola scriptura. The terms of the challenge are clear. If you want to start another thread on what *sola scriptura *means and doesn’t mean, then knock yourself out :slight_smile:

No the challenge is false - you said using only your bible - sola scriptura adherents do not use only their bible.

That is solo scriptura.

Maybe you should start the thread on what sola scriptura actually is - you might learn something :thumbsup:

well here is what really confuses me about sola scriptura…

if you believe in sola scriptura, then you can’t say that revelation comes through both Scripture and Tradition right? It would be “Scripture alone”…

but if it only comes through Scripture, then how come it says in the Bible that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and why do we need Tradition in order to properly interpret Scripture so there is unity? we can see in Protestantism, that when we get rid of Tradition, we get disunity and various conflicting doctrines…

it also says in the Bible that we should hold on to the traditions that were passed down to us whether by word OR by letter… (Tradition and Scripture)

the BIble seems to argue against sola scriptura, not for it.

furthermore, if you believe in sola scriptura, then how did the Church function before the Bible existed?

yes Scripture contains no error and is important…but the only right way to interpret it is with Tradition, and this goes against sola scriptura. (it also goes against what the Reformers said about interpretation, but supports what all the ECFs said…)

maybe that is what the OP meant.?

Many protestant denominations recognise the need for and role of the church. They just dont agree that the church in question is the church of Rome.

In my time and travels I have been involved in several evangelical churches. I have also served as a church elder and adult Sunday School teacher. What I have characterized as sola scriptura is consistent with how each of my former churches taught and understood it. If you want to designate yourself as some sort of Protestant pope and decree which understanding of *sola scriptura *is the correct one, as I said start your own thread.

My challenge is posed honestly. Please stop trying to divert the topic of this thread.

Right, Im pope protestantius IIIX - hmmmm, yes, it seems like those LDS were right after all.

Fair enough - but it’s one of 50 threads exactly the same. Im not sure what new angles you think you can bring out - is there no more creativity left in challenging protestants.

So all Protestants and all Protestant churches define Sola Scriptura as your churches did?

Anyway, I don’t see the point of this thread.

By the way, GuyOnTheStreet just answered according to one of the most influential books out there “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith Mathison. I would say that if any understanding of Sola Scriptura is the correct one, I would say that his carries more weight within the evangelical community at large than the one used by whatever churches you went to.

His point is valid. First you have to define Sola Scriptura before you discuss it.

Anyway, again, I don’t see the point of this thread.

Please, for the last time…

Your appeals to an author I never heard of as decisive is entirely beside the point, as is your assumption that your version of Protestantism is better than other people’s versions of Protestantism.

I did not give any formal definition to sola scriptura. My challenge was clear. Shall I infer from all the complaints about how it is posed that it cannot be answered in a way favorable to the Protestant position?

Bible verses only. That’s what I asked for. What we’ve gotten is objection and diversion. That is telling.

Nottoosmartbutdefinatelyveryintelligent has already answered the question in post 2 :stuck_out_tongue:

The Church of the Living God.

Your challenge is to prove that is the Catholic Church in union with Rome :thumbsup:

You asked question

Question: What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

I answered. See post 2.

I don’t get the point.

There are folks (Protestants of some sort) on these forums all the time who say that if it isn’t in the bible, then they don’t believe it. And that traditions of men are bad, etc.

Perhaps that’s not the formal definition of sola scriptura. And perhaps the thread is mis-titled.

But in any case, I haven’t seen any responses from those folks to the original poster’s question.

Umm…see post 2.

Sorry, guess I didn’t recognize post #2 as a response since it seemed to be more about what I “had in mind” than the words of scripture itself. I try not to be so postmodern myself, but I understand not everyone feels that way.

OK, so we have 1 Tim. 3:15. In case anyone isn’t familiar with it…

1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I’ll wait a while in case there are other responses…

As I said, the challenge is perfectly in keeping with the Statement of Faiths of several evangelical churches I have belonged to in my travels. Apparently Nottoosmart and Guyonthestreet belong to Protestant churches that define it a bit differently. This poses them with a bit of a problem. If they concede that there are different definitions of sola scriptura out there, this quickly degenerates into an epistemological quagmire and provides an object lesson on why so many factions of Protestantism have drifted toward postmodern relativism (which would be a good topic for another thread). So they pretend that there is only one definition (hoping you don’t ask who decides it and on what authority :wink: ) and those who define it differently “don’t understand” the doctrine correctly.

In my obsrvation the “you don’t understand doctrine X correctly” is a common Protestant debate tactic and is usually offered without any attempt to formally define the “correct” understanding of doctrine X or provide a rational basis for it. It’s an easy way to dismiss anything you can’t refute. It’s a lot harder to lay your own theology on the line and let it stand up to scrutiny.

Oh one thing I did notice…

In the original post you were asking your question to all who hold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I do not hold to Sola Scriptura as a doctrine. I do hold to it as a practice. There is a difference (quite big in my mind) between the two.

Depending on where you are going with this thread, I might not be the best respondant.

Well, since this isn’t what SS really is…


Point of order Chairman:

I’m not a protestant.

I dont belong to any church.

Im not even baptised.

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