The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Catholic Article against Sola Scripture

Pilgrim,

(you know I'm not Catholic) (you also know I'm not a Calvinist). I do/have believed in 'Sola Scripture', and have been having considerable trouble with it, in looking around at the spin-offs.

Last night I came across this article and it troubled me. I have not thoroughly gone through it. I don't endorse it. I want to know what your response is. I know you'll have an answer <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. (I don't)

Thank you,
-Kathy

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/knell.htm

Kathy,

Yes, I do have an answer here: Sola Scripture.

And one of the best defenses of in modern time of Sola Scriptura can be found here: Sola Scriptura by David King and William Webster. Not only do these two men of God present the biblical basis for the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", they totally disprove the Roman State Church's denial of it from the Scriptures itself.

Enjoy!

thank you for the links.

Hi,

The real meaning of Sola Scriptura has been corrupted in the centuries since the Reformation. One of the best and most thorough examinations of Sola Scriptura I've ever seen is Keith matheson's book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura. It's a little tedious at points and somehat repetitious, but it very clearly defines the meaning of Sola Scriptura and offers excellent criticisms of the most common substitutes employed in it's place. Enjoy!

-Robin

I also really enjoyed Keith's book. It's not a polemic against the RCC's protracted arguments against it which King & Webster's Sola Scriptura definitely is, but it is certainly a good read. In fact, you can read his most excellent chapter on "Solo Scriptura" here: A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura.
In His grace,

Pilgrim, I've read the article but still a little confused... do this for me. How do you explain the difference between sola scripture and solo scripture speaking to a new convert to reformed faith (as opposed to dispensationalism).

I understand the confusion. In fact, I had to write to Keith to ask him for more clarification to clear up a few items which weren't exactly clear in my own mind. But the gist of it is this, "SOLA Scriptura" doesn't mean that the believer becomes the old "island unto himself", or as some moderns put it, "just me, the Holy Spirit and the Bible" aka: a "Lone Ranger". The Bible is the SOLE and FINAL authority in ALL matters of faith and practice, ala: the WCF. Yet the great evangelical Creeds, e.g., the Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon, are to be recognized as subordinate authorities in regard to the subjects addressed by them respectively. Due to the weighty matters they addressed and under the circumstances which they came to be written, the teaching contained in them is to be deemed reliably true, i.e., they are true to the teaching of the Scriptures which the Holy Spirit authored through the original writers.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit was primarily given to the Church as the bulwark and defender of the faith . . . NOT as one who holds to and/or practices "SOLO Scriptura" believes. The Holy Spirit did not pack His bags and return to heaven after the Canon was closed, but contrariwise He continued to work in and through the minds and hearts of men so as to preserve the truth of what was written. I should perhaps just briefly make the important distinction between the Protestant doctrine and that held by the RCC. They introduce what they revere as being on equal plain as the Bible, i.e., "Oral Tradition", which to this day not one individual has been able to produce. Thus again, "SOLA Scriptura" is the final arbiter in matters of doctrinal and practical disagreement. The Creeds, having been thoroughly examined throughout the ages and having been found to be faithful to the teaching of Scripture universally, are not to be disregarded or transgressed.

Hopefully, that will shed some light on your confusion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,