21 Reasons Why to Reject Sola Scriptura

[hanley]

This is a really good read, I suggest people take time to read it.



http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apo ... m/sola.htm


After reading it, feel free to debate against it.


God bless.

[SolusChristus]

Okay, here I go.

What is Sola Scriptura?

"We believe in the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety as the sole rule of faith for the Christian!"

Correct, but incorrect as well. It's made to appear as if a Christian can interpret the Bible for himself flawlessly, which in turn supports other claims made by the website. This is incorrect, as there are many teachers whom Christians learn from which are where? In the church, the entire body of believers.

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible

It doesn't have to be. The way this website is formulated, I cannot refute it step-by-step, so bare with me, as I will explain why below.

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition

The Oral Tradition of the Apostles before the Scripture was widely available to churches. In the 16th century, when Luther lived, this so-called Tradition allowed for indulgences to be sold. And therefor could no longer be trusted. That's how the doctrine of Sola Scriptura started.

3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."

I don't see how that's a problem. The church is the body of believers, they have the truth with them, no worries there.

4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church

The Church has no authority in on itself.

Matthew 18:17 (King James Version)
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I don't see the Church being presented as a big organization, made to govern all believers.

The church is the entire body of genuine believers. If you don't hear the genuine believers and make up your own doctrines, (Arius, Pelagius etc), then may you be as a heathen man and a publican.

5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

Scripture is sufficient, with an interpreter. That interpreter interprets what? Scripture.

6. The first Christians did not have a Bible

They had scrolls of the written down Gospels. Not really that different.

7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

Yes, the church produced the Bible by compiling all the manuscripts which did not contradict each other. The church, however needs to be instructed by what's written.

8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

Again, you're placing a modern needed doctrine in the past. Back then, Sola Scriptura was not needed, the church was clean, the rules were set.

9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

Absolutely incorrect. How do you base a false doctrine on infallible scripture?

10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

Sources are somewhat vague, I can't really confirm or deny this. Either way, it doesn't matter.

11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

True, but God said He will preserve His word, I don't think He lied.

12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination

Lacking a satisfactory answer to the question of how the canon of the Bible was determined, Protestants often resort to the notion that Scripture is "self-authenticating," that is, the books of the Bible witness to themselves that they are inspired of God. The major problem with such an assertion is simply that even a cursory examination of ecclesial history will demonstrate it to be utterly untrue.

Really? Scripture is not inspired by God?

13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.

We have some pretty good copies.

14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations

True, that's why they're examined against solid theology, tradition if you will.

15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

Hundreds of Bible translations.

16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.

Ta-da. Sola Scriptura emerges.

17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.

Like I said above, it's new doctrine.

18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

No, the believers produce bad fruit trying to interpret the Scripture without wisdom given to them by the Spirit.

19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.

Yes, it does.

20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books

Which contradict the rest of Scripture.

21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.

That's a good one.


Why is tradition so important? What does it hold that the Bible doesn't?

If tradition transmits something that the Bible doesn't, how can we be sure of its legitimacy, except by looking in GOD INSPIRED Scripture?

Tradition is just interpretations of the Bible by different scholars, which appears also in Protestant theology.

This is just a quick response, I can't type much right now.

If you got any questions, feel free to ask.

[hanley]

Hey thanks for reply bud.

Correct, but incorrect as well. It's made to appear as if a Christian can interpret the Bible for himself flawlessly, which in turn supports other claims made by the website. This is incorrect, as there are many teachers whom Christians learn from which are where? In the church, the entire body of believers.[/quote

I dis-agree with this, you state the church is the whole body of believers what makes the church, but I dis-agree with this because I believe they is one true God, therefore one true Faith, with is everything together. I cannot believe God would allow people to have they own view on his words, but he would of set up an authority on earth, In the Book of ACTS I can see the Catholic Clergy abit, when the Apostles lay hands upon elders to recieve the Holy Spirit, then these elders are signed to churches etc. This is what Catholic Bishops do ( Successors of the apostles) as we call them. Also the Apostle went round teaching, the one true faith, I also guess the it would of been one faith, one tradition etc when the apostle was alive. No denominations but united. Also Christ condmened denominationism when he said A kingdom cannot last if its devided against each other.

The Oral Tradition of the Apostles before the Scripture was widely available to churches. In the 16th century, when Luther lived, this so-called Tradition allowed for indulgences to be sold. And therefor could no longer be trusted. That's how the doctrine of Sola Scriptura started.

The Catholic Church what we agree was the only church at that time, aswell as the Orthodox church which is pretty much in communion with us, still believes in indulgences, we have never actually dropped faith issues but people came corrupt, afterall we just men, even St.Peter the head apostle failed Jesus when he denied him, it was not that it could no longer be trusted its just people became corrupt , the faith did not become corrupt. They used indulgences for they own gain, and not as it should be.
Also if we believe the Catholic Church became corrupt in the 16th century then the gates of hades prevailed against his church and Jesus Christ was not who says he was.



Anyways I cant finish all this off because my computer is really slow at the moment.
But only thing I can say at this moment in time is your looking at what the writing is saying in a completely wrong view then the writer is actually meaning.


Ill finished rest when my computer speeds up.


God bless brother.