[quote=JJ59]But now for my real question:
One of the obvious flaws Catholics point out in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (myself included) is that the Bible never says that the Bible alone is our authority.
Then I got thinking: Should the Bible say that? Why?
Exactly. Why should it?
[quote=JJ59]Let’s take Jesus (ie the gospels) and the Epistles, which never say anything explicit about Sola Scriptura. Scripture being our sole authority as opposed to something else was never a matter of debate among Christians then. Why should they have said anything about it? I mean, the epistles were written to address issues of the time (For instance, Paul’s talk of the Lord’s Supper didn’t say much explicit about how we should to it: It was to address the problem that people were eating their own meals during that time.).
So I’m unsure… The matter of authority was not a problem back then, and Scripture was quoted frequently and spoken of as “God-breathed”, the way one would speak of it if they held it as the sole authority. Is the silence of Sola Scriptura meaningful? ***Are the protestants right??
God Bless.***Yes, the reformers were right. Sola Scriptura, and all of the solas, came about because of the reformers belief that the visible Church, at that time, was corrupt, and those who followed them believed that it remained corrupt. I agree with them.
The reformers were aware that the words sola scriptura weren’t in the Scripture, but also, they were keenly aware that the scriptures were the only true repository of God’s revelation to man, and that they were the means God had ordained to lead sinners into the truth and to guide Christians in their daily lives. Many scripture passages attest to that. Christ Himself, held all of the Jews to the teachings of Moses and the prophets—another name for the OT.
Another argument you’ll hear is, the NT wasn’t canonized until long after the death of Christ, and the apostles. That is true, and the reformers knew that, they were CATHOLICS! They also knew that the writings of the NT were in circulation well before they were assembled as the NT.
Next you’ll hear, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But what is a pillar and foundation if not that which holds up the truth found in God’s written revelation.
Furthermore, you’ll hear that the apostles taught oral tradition, and 2 Thess 2:15 is cited as proof of that.
Anyone caring more about truth, than about some overused and faulty apologetic, would take the time to read the entire chapter and beyond.
In so doing, one finds that Paul states, in writing, the oral teachings he already delivered to the Thessalonians.
In v1, the oral teaching concerns the Coming of our Lord, and our gathering to Him, and Paul reminds them that he had told that to them before in person v5. Regarding the holding to traditions in v15, one finds the other oral teaching already delivered in v 6, keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life. That’s a clearly written teaching throughout scripture.
With respect to the RCs oral tradition, the inference is that it somehow differs from that which was written by the apostles. That being the case, the burden of proof is upon the Church to substantiate that claim. But I’ve yet to have any Catholic provide a list of unwritten oral tradition, taught by any apostle. It can’t be done. :hmmm: