Refuting the fundamental modern error of Sola Scriptura.

I was going to add my own refutation to this modern fundamental error and new wind of doctrines of men, but I have discovered that it has already been dealt with by many others and so there is little purpose except to make the information available to you all here.

The following links do that very well. Please enjoy.

Recommended Reading:
Proving Inspiration
Scripture and Tradition
What's Your Authority?
Scriptural Reference Guide
A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura by Dave Armstrong
Catholic Questions: Apologetics Backward by Mary Beth Kremski

What Exactly Do You Mean by Sola Scriptura? by Jimmy Akin
Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura by Steve Ray
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin
Where Does the Authority Lie? by Kenneth J. Howell

According to Scripture by Tim Staples
Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural
The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition by Jimmy Akin
Logic and Protestantism's Shaky Foundations by Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
Going Beyond by Patrick Madrid


Edward Yablonsky said...

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

I would quote the above from Steve Ray's article to define what ta true Berean is in rejecting sola scriptura in the sense the Thessalonian Jews used the term without recourse to the whole oral tradition as the basis for accepting new revelation, and that open examination with an open mind is what made them noble.

Blackie said...

Thank you Ed. I much appreciate your input on this topic.

Elechim shalom!

Edward Yablonsky said...

I have listened to your mp3 down load link . I was much impressed by the scriptural reasoning in rejecting the purported reasoning of the "faith alone argumengt". Faith with works is the correct rendition and it is taught correctly by the Catholic church. I am beginning to see that more and more, and I am not "presently" Catholic. The sinner attains to righteousness and is not imputed righteousness by putting on the image of Christ and becoming in his likeness. I am quite impressed. Also I have read parts of Zolli's book and story and the WWII accounts of the Church.
The other "Christians" profess imputed righteousness as a legal principle yet reject the legalism of the law as a definite phenomena for all time and do not countenance our spiritual growth into the image of the Christ, embracing a legalistic notion of imputing righteousness while rejecting the growth entailed as necessary by growing into His love. I could never understand this thinking inimical to scriptural teaching.

Blackie said...

Thanks again Edward. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance at all.

Your servant,

Edward Yablonsky said...

BLACKIE: Just recently I read an article you archived on the canonicity of the Pseudepigrahical books such as Macabees and Susanna and others in the Catholic canon. I found that the reasoing in the article was quite persuasive for their inclusion. Why do so many traditions, defuse these and say they are not inspired when they are alluded to in the Gospels? I cannot comprehend the reasoning of the many in eschewing these books! The reasoning in the article rang a clear bell to me.

Edward Yablonsky said...

Practical Use

Some apologists working with Protestants have adopted the two-mode position, which may help certain Protestants in the process of becoming Catholic. It also may help deflect certain objections that that are met in debate. Such an apologist might say:
It is not necessary for a Catholic to claim that the Bible is materially insufficient—that it fails to teach some truths needed for salvation. Scripture contains all that material, and we can agree with our Protestant brethren on this point. But the Bible does not contain this material in a form that makes it easy to derive these truths without risk of error. You need the help of Tradition to do that. Scripture is thus materially sufficient but not formally sufficient.

The above quote sets all in context fairly well as to SS and the debate it entails. What is in scripture are truths needingb tradition to clarify them with exactitude and fullness of precision. That's how I understand this article referenced on the site. Much of it might be semantics as tradition serves to clarify what is meant to be unfolded later but initially obscure. That is how tradition appears to me. I think that is what comprises a main theme of the article.

Edward Yablonsky said...

Complex Relationship

Some truths of Tradition are directly stated in Scripture, such as God’s creation of the world. the Bible comes right out and says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).

Other truths of Tradition are not stated directly in Scripture but are implied clearly by the biblical author. For example, while the Bible doesn’t come out and say that the Holy Spirit is a person rather than a force, it is implied in numerous passages, such as those in which the Spirit is depicted as speaking to people (e.g., Acts 13:2), and the biblical authors meant us to understand this.

Some truths of Tradition can be inferred from Scripture even though the biblical authors did not clearly imply them. For example, Christ having both a human will and a divine will can be inferred from his being "true God and true man" (CCC 464). Various biblical passages state or imply that he is true God and true man, but in none does the biblical author state or imply that he had two wills. We have to figure that out by inference.

A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can’t be proved from the text alone. The Immaculate Conception may be reflected in what Gabriel says to Mary in Luke 1:28, and the Assumption may be reflected in the wings the woman is given in Revelation 12:14, but you couldn’t prove these truths from the text alone.

Some truths are presupposed by Scripture, such as many of the particulars of how the sacraments are celebrated—their proper form, matter, ministers, and recipients. The sacraments are mentioned in the Bible, but the biblical authors didn’t give many details about their administration. They assumed that the reader would look to the practice of the Church for the answers to these questions. For example, the sacrament of reconciliation is discussed, but the words that need to be used to make an absolution valid are not.

Some truths are not in Scripture at all; not even a piece of the truth in question is indicated. As we saw earlier, the truths that public revelation is ended and that there will be no more apostles fall in this category.

Often it isn’t easy to decide which of these categories a truth falls into, but it is beneficial to think the question through, consider whether the Scriptural basis for a truth is found in the literal or the spiritual sense of the text, and consider how much confidence in the truth can be drawn from the Bible compared to how much must be drawn from Tradition.

While these considerations may be useful as an apologist explores the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, he ultimately will have to decide how he thinks they fit together. So far, the Church has left him considerable latitude.

I enjoyed this article as well on your site and this contains numerous points which set in context the role of tradition.Truths by allusion and not proved by text give here the elucidating role and need for tradition initially.

Edward Yablonsky said...

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This was quoted in the site linked article and is pretty obvious to me in countenancing oral tradition alongside the written and was written in the time of the apostles .and of Paul. The written can be tracked and codified but the oral is resounding and codified into the writings anyway.

Edward Yablonsky said...

I have just read a very informative article in my email I thought approrpiate to list here also refuting Sola Fide as error.Sola Fide is usually the companion of Sola Scriptura in trhe family of error. The quote is below captioned.

Jesus tells His listeners that they should “labor” for the food which endures to eternal life. If Sola Fide is true, why is He telling them to labor for anything in regard to eternal life? Then, when they ask what they must “do” to be doing the works of God, what does Jesus say? He says that believing in Him is the work of God that they must do. Believing is a work, according to Jesus Christ.

Jane Martin said...

Jesus is the Word Made Flesh - The Bible. He not only quotes Scripture. He is scripture. He is the fulfillment of God's Word. Everytime I hold my bible in my hands, I realize that I am holding Jesus in my hands. This is profound. He is prayer, to the ultimate degree. I choose to focus only on scripture, which is as it should be. Sola Scriptura - by Scripture alone / by Jesus alone.

Blackie said...

Unfortunately what you have offered is a serious misinterpretation of scripture which actually is idolatrous in that by it you are deifying the Bible when nowhere within it does it lay claim to any such thing.

Jesus is not the Bible, and although most definitely inspired by God, it does not in any way share in the divine nature that Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ has and you cannot provide scripture that even remotely infers such a thing.

The Bible has no flesh, therefore it cannot possible be "the word made flesh". That is taken totally out of context and terribly twisted to attempt to make it says something that it does not.

the passage you refer to is from John 1, but here's the actual context so that everyone who reads this can see the way you have cherry picked a part and then twisted it to serve a doctrine that has no basis in scripture.
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God;[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
... [10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.
[11] He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
[12] But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
[13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Jesus Christ is God the son and shares the same divine nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

What you have offered deifies the Bible and thus negates the Trinity and adds a fourth aspect to God, which is heresy such as no Christian has ever even offered in all the 2,000 years of Christian history.

You are in great error.