![\"DogChasingTail2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/DogChasingTail2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nDefending sola Scriptura<\/em> is rather like a dog chasing his tail. Either he never catches it, or if he does, it hurts and is not nearly as much fun or fulfilling as he thought it would be. Photo by \u201cLil Shepherd\u201d: 16 May 2012<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY 2.0<\/a> license]<\/span><\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura<\/em><\/span><\/a> <\/span>is a paper of mine from 2003. I recently posted it in a large Facebook theological group. A Protestant named Milan Lorinc<\/a><\/span> took it upon himself to attempt a refutation of all ten points. This is my counter-reply. He gave me full permission to cite his words, which will be in blue<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Now, before I begin, it\u2019s very important for all who read this to understand exactly what it is<\/em> that we are debating. Sola Scriptura<\/em> is not<\/em> the belief that Scripture is revelation from God and as such, a supreme, inspired authority. All Christians agree on that<\/em>, so there is no need to debate it. Rather, it means that<\/span> Scripture is the only<\/em><\/strong> infallible, binding authority<\/a>. That means that neither the Church nor sacred tradition are infallible, as Catholics and Orthodox believe. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Almost always in these discussions (I\u2019ve literally engaged in this debate well over a hundred times now), Protestants garner tons of biblical indications that Scripture is inspired and infallible, which is fine and dandy, but utterly irrelevant<\/em> to this<\/em> debate, because all observant, historic Christians agree on that!\u00a0<\/span>The burden on the Protestant \u2014 in establishing and defending sola Scriptura<\/em> \u2014 is always to prove from Scripture that only Scripture is infallible and that it only is the final and binding authority for the Christian. At the same time, it logically follows that they have to prove that the Church and sacred tradition are <\/span>not<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0such authorities.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, when the Catholic shows that either\u00a0the Church\u00a0or sacred tradition are presented<\/i>\u00a0as binding \/ infallible authorities in Scripture, it is in turn a direct refutation of sola Scriptura<\/em>. I will demonstrate over and over again that what my opponent produces as supposed \u201cproofs\u201d of sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0are actually no proofs at all; and they are not because of what I just noted above. Once again, readers must always keep this introduction in mind, because it is routinely misunderstood by those who attempt to defend sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n As the author of not just one<\/a>, but two<\/em> books<\/a> on this very topic, I\u2019m very familiar with it. I\u2019ve written about it far more than any other topic, in my 25 years of Catholic apologetics. And I have taken on not only the leading historic defenders of the doctrine, but the leading champions of it today as well.<\/span><\/p>\n I hope you enjoy the debate!<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Sola Scriptura is Not Taught in the Bible\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Author of article Dave Armstrong is technically right about it\u2026 These 2 words SOLA SCRIPTURA, or SCRIPTURE ALONE cannot be explicitly found in Old nor New Testament. How could they be, if they were for first time articulated in 16. century by Reformers as one of more formal principles of Reformation (SOLA SCRIPTURA altogether with other SOLA: SOLA CHRISTI- CHRIST ALONE, SOLA GRATIA \u2013 GRACE ALONE and SOLA FIDE \u2013 FAITH ALONE.<\/span><\/p>\n The debate is not about those mere words<\/em> being present or not (whether together or indirectly deduced), but about the concept<\/em> or idea of sola Scriptura<\/em>. Is it taught in the Bible? I say no; my opponent says yes. I say that not only these sloganistic words, but also the idea, were novel and corrupt innovations that came about 16 centuries after Christ. They were taught neither in the Bible, nor by the apostles, nor by the Church fathers. There was a TV soup commercial (about vegetable soup, as I recall) which highlighted the observation regarding the ingredients: \u201cIt\u2019s in<\/em> there!\u201d Well, in this case, sola Scriptura<\/em> is not<\/em>\u00a0\u201cin there\u201d (\u201cthere\u201d being Scripture).<\/span><\/p>\n However formal sufficiency or formal Authority of Scriptures is in the CORE of Jesus\u2019s and of apostolical teaching. First Christians had Scriptures as their Supreme authority..<\/span><\/p>\n Yes they did; so do we. But they also had the Church and sacred, apostolic tradition as supreme authorities. In fact, the New Testament was not even determined yet, and would not be for another 350 years or so. Thus, the first Christians could not be sure what was an inspired New testament book and what wasn\u2019t. Some thought books were inspired that we don\u2019t think are inspired today. Others denied that New Testament books (that we accept today; and the biblical canon came from Church authority). I wrote in this section 1 of my paper being critiqued:<\/span><\/p>\n Scripture certainly is a \u201cstandard of truth\u201d (we agree fully with Protestants), even the preeminent one, but\u00a0<\/span>not\u00a0<\/i>in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn\u2019t teach that. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is\u00a0<\/span>materially sufficient<\/i>. In other words, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the\u00a0<\/span>formal authority<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0<\/span>Rule of Faith\u00a0<\/i>for the Christian (<\/span>formal sufficiency<\/i>), in isolation from the Church and Apostolic Tradition.\u00a0<\/span>Sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0can\u2019t even be\u00a0<\/span>deduced\u00a0<\/i>from implicit passages.<\/span><\/p>\n Whilst term SOLA SCRIPTURA \u2013 Scripture alone isn\u2019t in Bible, Supreme position of Written Word of God IS IN THE BIBLE. JESUS AND APOSTLES TAUGHT IT !!!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n No they didn\u2019t, and I will repeatedly show how this characterization is inaccurate.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with Mark 7,1-20 where Jesus and His disciples are challenged by devout Pharisees for not observing washing \u2013 hands- rule. This is the first evidence that Jesus hadn\u2019t role of religious tradition and of Jewish Holy Scriptures on the same level as of equal authoritative sources of religious life in Judaism.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus\u2019s harsh criticism of putting tradition of elders and Scriptures on the same level of authoritativeness is expressed in His words: \u201d Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain they worship me, teaching doctrines which are nothing but the commandments of men \u201d And then Jesus gave particular example of breaking Written Commandment of Moses Law : \u201d For Moses said, \u2018Honor your father and your mother;\u2019 and, \u2018He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.\u2019\u201d Religious tradition set up against this commandment of Moses Law the rule that \u201d But you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, \u201cWhatever profit you might have received from me is the gift, given to God;\u201d\u2019 12 then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother,\u201d This is an old and tired Protestant polemic. Supposedly, Jesus opposes all previous Jewish tradition. In point of fact, this is not true at all. Jesus followed Pharisaical traditions Himself.\u00a0He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Mt 5:18-19, Lk 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, including observing the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Mt 8:4, Mk 1:44, Lk 5:4). He worshiped in the synagogues and the temple. The apostle Paul called himself a Pharisee twice (Acts 23:6 and 26:5).\u00a0Jesus expressly stated that He was not removing anything in the Law:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 5:17-19<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThink not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.\u00a0[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.\u00a0[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He also told His disciples to follow the Pharisees\u2019 teaching even though they may be hypocrites:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 23:2-3<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses\u2019 seat;\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In Mark 7, Jesus is criticizing legalism, spiritual pride, lack of wholehearted devotion, and hypocrisy, not<\/em> tradition itself. I wrote about<\/span> similar themes <\/a>recently. But for many Protestants, \u201ctradition\u201d in the Bible is a \u201cdirty word.\u201d This is simply not true. There are<\/span> good, apostolic traditions and bad traditions<\/a>.\u00a0A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that Jesus only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like \u201cyour<\/em> tradition,\u201d \u201ccommandments of men<\/em>,\u201d \u201ctradition of men<\/em>,\u201d as opposed to \u201cthe commandment of God<\/em>.\u201d St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: \u201cBeware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.\u201d Paul uses the word \u201ctradition\u201d in a wholly positive and authoritative sense in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6. Oral tradition<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>is also massively indicated in the New Testament. Let\u2019s get to other texts showing that Jewish Scriptures were Supreme Authority for Jesus..<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus\u2019s key role of Saviour and Redeemer from Sin has been designed from everlasting and Holy Spirit put it as program for Jesus through the writers of Old Testament writings..From all statements where Jesus predicted His torture, crucifixion death and resurrection is evident that Jesus pointed to SCRIPTURES AND NOT TO RELIGIOUS TRADITION of Judaism.<\/span><\/p>\n This proves nothing to the point. All it proves is that Scripture has messianic prophecies that were fulfilled. Of course . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201dBehold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are WRITTEN THROUGH THE PROPHETS concerning the Son of Man will be completed.\u201d(Luke 18,31) and \u201d Didn\u2019t the Christ have to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201d27 Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.\u201d(Luke 24,27) Also see Luke 22,37;Mat 26,24;26,54 Although we don\u2019t see in Gospels specific term SCRIPTURES, often we can find words MOSES (TORAH), PROPHETS, WRITINGS which in Hebrew thinking means three-folded partition of Jewish Bible. So although Gospel writers sometimes mention only prophets, or Moses and Prophets that in another words means SCRIPTURES\u2026 Also statement: \u201dit is written \u201d points to the Supreme role of Scriptures as Rule of faith<\/span><\/p>\n Yes of course. But none of this shows that it is the only<\/em> authority.<\/span><\/p>\n [Milan then provided many more examples of messianic prophecies, which are irrelevant to the point under dispute, as explained]<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus fought against Devil not with Jewish religious tradition, but He used Scriptural commands to tackle tempting Satan\u2026Three times Jesus answered Satan\u2019s seduction with verse of Scripture showing that Jesus is fully surrendered under Scriptural Authority and so shall be Satan\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n On many occasions Jesus countered his opponents in theological debates with Scriptures proving that they thoroughly miss fundamental thing \u2013 obedience of Written Word of God whilst they tried hardest for full obedience of their religious tradition. Let me give a few examples:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n We can see in John 5 as Jesus healed paralyzed man lying at Bethesda lake. According to Pharisees Jesus broke commandment on Sabbat observance on many instances because He dared to heal people (see also John 9; Luke 6,6-11, Luke 13,10-17) .. What was for Pharisees prohibited Shabbat work, for Jesus that was necessity of the human healing is not lesser than the loosing ox or ass from the stall and to lead them to the water to drink everyday even during Sabbath (Luke 13,15-16) and if people are circumcised even on Sabbath so that Mose\u2019s Law could be observed why Pharisees are crossed with Jesus as he healed whole personality (John 7,22-23).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Some of very devout Pharisaic Jews have been ultimately irritated and outraged by this Jesus\u2019s \u2018behavior\u2019 as they declared about Jesus: \u201cThis man is not from God, because he doesn\u2019t keep the Sabbath.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n None of this proves sola Scriptura<\/em>, either. Milan is following the same old playbook, based on these basic logical fallacies. Jesus did observe the Sabbath. He is making a point about how we observe it, not whether we should or not. Later, the Church decided that the Lord\u2019s Day (Sunday) would be, in effect, the new development of Sabbatarianism.<\/span><\/p>\n However Jesus was obedient observant of Mose\u2019s Torah commandment. He only refuted and turned upside down man \u2013 made ideas and imaginations of Pharisees which were \u201dholy tradition\u201d for his opponents.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Yes! We agree on that.<\/span><\/p>\n [he gives more off-topic examples of Jesus\u2019 opposition to corrupt traditions]<\/span><\/p>\n I have already mentioned Mark 7,1 ff where religious tradition of washing hands and of all other things has been exalted to be Divine command. Jesus evidently refused to comply these man-made traditions and definitely refused them to have same authoritative position in religion as Written Word of God.<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly! Jesus opposed man-made, corrupt traditions. He did not oppose \u00a0true traditions, including oral traditions. The question for Him is not \u201cScripture vs. tradition\u201d but rather, \u201ctrue traditions (including Scripture) vs. false, man-made traditions.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n . . .\u00a0But formal sufficiency of Bible as Supreme Authority is there and Jesus purposefully taught it\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n This was not shown to the slightest degree in his arguments thus far . . . I\u2019ve already noted that Jesus told His followers to observe the teachings from the Pharisees, based on their authority as occupying \u201cMoses\u2019 seat\u201d (a notion which is not in the Old Testament).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a02. \u201cWord of God\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Dave Armstrong of is right about this point but only from one point of view. Let me give another point of view:\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n For Jesus were commandments of Scriptures as true expression of God\u2019s Word. As rich young man asked Him on matters of Salvation and eternal life (Matt 19,16ff), Jesus pointed him to the commands of Scriptures, not to tradition. The same thing Jesus told Pharisees (22,34-40) The Sadducees denied oral tradition, whereas Jesus and the early Church accepted it. The inter-testamental traditions included teachings on the afterlife and angels, which were not explicit in the Old Testament. I showed in another section how Jesus accepted the authority of non-biblical oral traditions. I\u2019ve already made note of one: \u201cMoses\u2019 seat.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n For good spiritual health and well-being is crucial: 1. To know Scriptures, obey Written Word of God\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Yes it is, but there is no disagreement here.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 2. To know God\u2019s Power<\/span><\/p>\n On the contrary ignorance, disobedience of Written Word of God or deliberate rebellion against Scriptural Authority is pathway to delusion and heresy. Catholic Church is in same delusion as Saducees were because Scriptures aren\u2019t her Supreme Authority and people in CC aren\u2019t deliberately led to feed themselves with GOD\u2019s WORD through daily reading and meditation. They aren\u2019t lead either to surrender every part of their lives under Rulership of Scriptural Command..And Catholics may be opened to the supernatural Work of the Holy Spirit, but without being complied to the REGULA FIDEI of Scriptural Authority, they are like man who has only one leg. And only by supernatural miracle of God can get both legs, so Catholics can get too, if they fully submit their lives under Governance of Bible..<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Catholics respect the Bible as much as Protestants do. It is<\/em> our supreme authority. We simply say that it has to be interpreted within the framework of historic, apostolic tradition and the guidance of the Church. This had always been the case, even in Old Testament times. In Nehemiah 8, there was a big event in which the Bible was read to the people. But the text doesn\u2019t say that they understood it simply by hearing it. Rather, it states:<\/span><\/p>\n Nehemiah 8:7-8\u00a0<\/strong>Also Jesh\u2019ua, Bani, Sherebi\u2019ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab\u2019bethai, Hodi\u2019ah, Ma-asei\u2019ah, Keli\u2019ta, Azari\u2019ah, Jo\u2019zabad, Hanan, Pelai\u2019ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law<\/em><\/span>, while the people remained in their places.\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood<\/em><\/span> the reading.\u00a0<\/span> It\u2019s the same in the New Testament. We have the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, seeking to understand the Bible:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Milan mentioned the messianic prophecies. But these weren\u2019t understood merely by reading them, either. Thus, we see in the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, that they completely missed it, and that the risen Jesus had to directly help them interpret and understand them:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s always<\/em> been like this, and this is how the Bible presents itself: it\u2019s the inspired revelation, that has to be authoritatively interpreted<\/em> <\/strong>in order to be properly understood, within a framework of doctrinal, creedal, confessional orthodoxy. This is how we Catholics look at the matter: precisely as Scripture itself<\/em> does: one needs authoritative interpretation. Precisely because Protestants don\u2019t<\/em> believe this, they are hopelessly self-contradictory and have many hundreds of competing denominations, with contradictions (therefore, falsehood and error) all over the place. That\u2019s the fruit of the false doctrine of \u201cevery man reading the Scripture without any necessary guidance, to find all of Christian truth.\u201d Right . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus during Jewish feast declared: if anyone believes in me AS SCRIPTURE SAY rivers of living water will flow from inside of him\u201d(John 7,38).. I have just shown what Scripture says. It had to be authoritatively interpreted for readers: by the Levites in the old covenant: teaching authorities, by the apostle Philip, and by Jesus Himself in the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. St. Peter also notes that some teachings in St. Paul were hard to understand, so that people developed false doctrines from them:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nThus Pharisees made Written God\u2019s Word NULL AND VOID for the sake of observance of religious tradition of Jewish elders. THE SAME WAY CATHOLIC CHURCH MADE NULL AND VOID HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR THE SAKE OF OBSERVANCE OF CATHOLIC TRADITION..!!!<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSadducees which wanted to ridicule Jesus and His teaching on resurrection Jesus rebuked of being in delusion.. \u201dyou are in delusion because you don\u2019t know Scriptures nor God\u2019s power\u201d(Matt 22,29)\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nActs 8:27-31<\/strong>\u00a0And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can\u2019dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>29] And the Spirit said to Philip, \u201cGo up and join this chariot.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, \u201cDo you understand what you are reading?<\/em><\/span>\u201d\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>31] And he said, \u201cHow can I, unless some one guides me?<\/span><\/em>\u201d And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nLuke 24:25-27, 32<\/strong>\u00a0And he said to them, \u201cO foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?\u201d\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself<\/span><\/em>. . . . [32]\u00a0They said to each other, \u201cDid not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures<\/span><\/em>?\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nDave Armstrong, and another Catholics, you can believe in God\u2019s Word in Catholic Tradition, you can believe in Jesus as Catholic Church say, but no rivers of living water will flow!!! Only those shall be fulfilled with life-giving stream of God\u2019s Holy life who believe in Jesus AS SCRIPTURE SAY!!!!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n2 Peter 3:15-17<\/strong>\u00a0And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,\u00a0<\/span>[<\/span>16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand<\/em><\/span>, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>