Sola Scriptura?

Question

Protestants assault my faith, Orthodox Christianity, and the Roman Catholic faith on the grounds that we establish doctrines with Tradition and settle controversies from it. The truth is, we consider the Bible a part of Tradition.

Therefore, I ask the Sola Scriptura guys to asnwer these questions using *only* the Bible (no appeals to any Tradition).

1). What books belong in the Bible? The table of contents is a modern phenomena. Please quote only Scripture.
2). Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?
3). If it does not, then what good is a doctrine that fails its own test?
4). If it does, is your collection of books identical with that one? If you quote a book written before Revelation, then why do you include Revelation (if you do)?
5). If your references refer to passages like Revelation's prohibitions to add to "this book," then why would you add other books of the Bible to it? It says THIS book (no addition, remember?).

I predict that everyone will have to use tradition.

Answer 1

It's interesting that you have only gotten one answer (at least at the time I read this) although your question had been up for a while.

The truth is that they can't justify sola scriptura. They can't even justify the books the use in the NT without turning to the Catholic Church and tradition. They are so quick to judge Catholic yet their very beliefs and scriptures are based upon the very church they mock.

I challenge any Protestant to read a book called "Not By Scripture Alone" (unfortunately I cannot remember the author's full name off the top of my head). It is a book that examines the claims of sola scriptura and effectively debunks all of them.

Answer 2

The textbook reply would be that scripture is "self-authenticating", that is, that the books that are part of scripture are self-evidently inspired. As such, the Church, at the council of Hippo around 393 AD, merely selected the 27 books in the NT because they were obviously inspired. The problem with this explanation is that Luther himself removed James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation from the NT. They were only reinserted at Melanchthon's insistence. Not to mention the 8 books of the OT that Luther threw out, which are still missing from the Protestant canon....

But yes, sola scriptura is the weakest protestant doctrine and the easiest to refute. Jesus didn't leave us with a Bible, but rather a Church, with authority and structure that is chronicled in the book of Acts, and the Bible is a product of early Church tradition and the canon is directly a product of the Magisterium of the Church. Hence St. Augustine's famous quote: "I would not believe in the Authority of the Scriptures were it not for the Authority of the Church".

Answer 3

Amazing how people ignore the actual question and reply with BS. Look I’m not Catholic or Protestant rather I’m gnostic so I’m neutral, but it’s a fact that sola-scriptura is unbiblical. It is a tradition. Furthermore “scripture” does not mean the Protestant bible or any canon, it simply means “scripture” and nothing more, so it is not stated exactly what is or what is not “scripture”. Next, “adding or removing” in Revelation is instruction about that book alone, nothing else, so it’s interesting how people added the rest of the bible to that book. Naught, naughty. Bottom line is the NT is a Catholic tradition whether the Protestants like it or not. The NT is “the word of god” only because they say so. Bible doesn’t say it anywhere so therefore it’s a Protestant tradition. HAHA.

Answer 4

erik,

Limbo was never a tradition of the church. The issue of whether something is made a dogma is when a teaching has existed from the begining and because of contrary teachings a council is formed to make that teaching a dogma, in other words they define the teaching definitively for the church. Limbo was never declared dogma, it was a theory that floated around. it was never upheld or condemned.

There is a difference between tradition (practices or corolary teachings) and Tradition (defined dogma's)

their were 2 old testaments in circulation during the time of jesus. (the greek and the palestinian) the apostles adopted the greek canon because much of what jesus quoted came from that which includes the deutero canonical books(protestants call them apocraphal.

After the jews kicked the christians out of the temple, they settled on the palestinian canon because the christians had taken the greek one.

after Luthers revolt, he adopted the palestinian canon because it did away with a teaching about praying for the dead, among other things( a teaching he detested) in 2 maccabees.

revelation was also thrown out by luther as well as james because of the liturgical language and teachings about works.

By adopting the palestinian canon the protestants unknowling disobeyed the scripture that said you shall not take away from the teachings of this book.

scripture alone is self refuting and unbiblical such as the communion only being a symbol of jesus' body. No where in the bible does it say or even imply such a belief. Plus they dont use wine for communion!

Answer 5

The idea of Bible alone was never heard of until the reformation and even though there is in fact no scripture to back it up it has been used as a rod to beat Catholicism with.
Now the fact is that the Apostles taught the word of God orally so if sola scriptora is the beginning and end of the Good News what has this to say about Apostolic traditon? it would have to negate it and in doing so would render itself impotent and non viable.
Without the oral tradition of the Apostles there can be no written Gospel as we know it, it is this oral teaching office of Peter and the other Apostles that is still held by the Pope and the Bishops of the Catholic church and by conveniently undermining this teaching authority by sola scriptora, the Protestant reformers motives were sinister and heretical and did not just simply defy the Apostolic tradtion and the Catholic church, but Christ Himself.

Answer 6

Sola Scriptura is quite incorrect in protestant circles; Most protestants use systematic theology to determine beliefs, which blends together what many have thought over the years about certain passages, a little scripture here and there to back it up, and presto= we have our beliefs.

I too was once a Catholic criticizer, but have grown to really appreaciate the similarites and differences. And everyone should understand, we will all have something wrong in a set of beliefs, and when we reach the beyond, we will see that maybe we didn't have it all 100% perfect like we thought.

Answer 7

John 16:13 - 15

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

I don't believe in Sola Scripture, but yet I am Protestant just the same. I agree with you that the scriptures are God breathed, but then we (every Christian) are given the Helper (the Holy Spirit) to guide each Christian into all truth. The truth is also seen in what God has created, for creation was created by the very word (sola scriptura) of God.

"Let there be light" and it was so.

Answer 8

Your Question is Good one.

The fallacy is this the Bible( the 66 books) all agree with each other, Traditions does not agree with each other or the Bible.

I will give you an example just recently your church changed it tradition in relation to Limbo.

Now to get to your exact Question, no one really doubts what books go into the old testament, they are clear from the quoting that happens in the New testament.

so the New testament is the real sticky one. And the Simple anwser is the that a council of men Made the final Selection i belive at that was in 325. Satan has tried to sell the Church(the greater body of Christ) on the idea we need to add or remove various Books since then.

Erik

Answer 9

The Church founded by Jesus Christ is the pillar and foundation of truth. "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3,15)

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ's infallible authority.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
Peace and every blessing!

Answer 10

Not a one can ever offer reputable dispute to this question, because there is none. Sola Scripture is very UNbiblical.