# 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura



## JM

Has anyone answered these yet? 



> 1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is Not Taught Anywhere in the Bible.
> 
> 2. The Bible Indicates that in Addition to the Written Word, We Are to Accept Oral Tradition.
> 
> 3. The Bible Calls the Church and Not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."
> 
> 4. Christ Tells Us to Submit to the Authority of the Church.
> 
> 5. Scripture Itself States that It Is Insufficient of Itself as a Teacher, but Rather Needs an Interpreter.
> 
> 6. The First Christians Did Not Have a Complete Bible.
> 
> 7. The Church Produced the Bible and Not Vice-Versa.
> 
> 8. The Idea of the Scripture's Authority Existing Apart from the Authority of the Teaching Church is Utterly Foreign to the Early Church.
> 
> 9. Heresiarchs and Heretical Movements Based Their Doctrines on Scripture Interpreted Apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
> 
> 10. The Canon of the Bible Was Not Settled until the 4th Century.
> 
> 11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
> 
> 12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.
> 
> 13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts Is Extant
> 
> 14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.
> 
> 15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
> 
> 16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.
> 
> 17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
> 
> 18. The Doctrine Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
> 
> 19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
> 
> 20. The Protestant Bible is missing 7 Entire Books.
> 
> 21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther's Own Emotional Problems.



Thanks.


----------



## taylonr

#5 - First thing comes to mind is Galatians which talks about the Law being sufficient only as a tutor until the time that Christ came. In which case, the interpreter would be Christ and the Holy Spirit.

#13 and 14 are straw men. Through normal historical processes, the accuracy of the manuscripts can be obtained better than any other work, yet we read those works without the need for a separate "interpreter" or "tradition" (what is the "tradition of ceasar?)

#16 tends to show why matters of faith should not be decided by a single body, in this case the RCC. They withheld the Bible from the common man. This was aided by the lack of printing press and literacy. However, both of those could have been overcome to increase the circulation (although not to the point of a Bible in every home)

#17 and #21 seem contradictory. It either existed in the 14th century (as is implied by #17) or it was because of Luther (16th Century) or possibly neither. But how can a doctrine exist 100+ years before its source?

#20 shows the bias that this is operating from. A more neutral statement would be that the RCC and the Protestant Bible differ. I could easily write that the RCC has 7 extra 
books.


----------



## Devin

Honestly, this list is pretty weak (as Nathan has shown). It truly lacks any evidence of logical thought or of interaction with Protestant rebuttals.

Who put out this list?


----------



## JM

It was posted here. It's pretty standard stuff I just thought I'd post it on PB because these objections come up often, it would be nice to have a post in the archives for future reference.

Peace.

j


----------



## Devin

Ah, okay, it's from a book by Joel Peters. I was just curious if it was a random blogger or something. 

Like you said, it's pretty standard stuff. Only perhaps 5-6 of the reasons are actual arguments against Sola Scriptura (ie, Luther's emotional problems are irrelevant, heretical movements using Sola Scriptura doesn't negate the doctrine because plenty of heretical movements use the doctrine of the Church Alone too, etc).


----------



## MW

JM said:


> Has anyone answered these yet?



Thomas Manton in The Morning Exercises Against Popery has a sermon entitled The Scripture Sufficient Without Unwritten Traditions. This was also included in vol. 5 of his Works.


----------



## DTK

armourbearer said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone answered these yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Manton in The Morning Exercises Against Popery has a sermon entitled The Scripture Sufficient Without Unwritten Traditions. This was also included in vol. 5 of his Works.
Click to expand...

I transcribed this sermon 8 or 9 years ago, and it is available in a number of places on the web. Here's one site where it can be found...

Sermon by Manton

DTK


----------



## Zenas

6/7. Hmm, the early church may not have had the complete Bible as we know today, but they did have the complete cannon.

The cannon exists whether we have it right or not. The fact that one church might have not had Jude or another not had 1 Timothy doesn't mean that the cannon of Scripture wasn't in existence. It was. The cannon determines itself because God inspired it. A group of men declaring something to be the cannon only states the obvious fact that it already existed. They did not give infalliability to cannon, the cannon was infalliable, they merely stated the obvious.

1. This is an infantile assertion that needs no answer. Who's putting this stuff out? Dave Armstrong or Jimmy Akin? It smacks of intentional ignorance. 

21. This makes me think that Dave Armstrong is putting it out. Am I right?

19. Niether does the interpretation of the Roman Catholic church. They have infalliably defined a total of 7 verses. Congrats. 

8. Intentional ignorance of the early fathers on their part. This, again, is pretty infantile. This may impress the unlearned laity, but anyone whose done an iota of reading knows this is a lie. 

9. The modern day Roman Catholic church is FULL of teachings that are heretical to the official doctrine of Roman Catholicism. This obviously shows that Sola Ecclesia is completely ineffective to the ends that the Romanists claim it is, and that the Roman church has thrown church discipline to the wayside. When was the last time they excommunicated someone from heresey? This year? Yeah, for a heresey they had allowed to go on for what, like 60 years? Give me a break. Protestants at least have the commitment to Scripture to actually split over issues. Roman Catholics just maintain a facade of unity. It fails on every level. The ARP is united in it's beliefs. The Roman Catholic church is not. 

11. Really? A church council? Identifying and determining are two different things. I can identify a Bible. Big deal.

Sorry, they're out of order, but these are retarded. I hope no one with a doctorate degree composed this swill, and I suspect it's Dave Armstrong, seriously.


----------



## Casey

It's long, but if you have the time, there are answers in this book:

_A Disputation on Holy Scripture_ by William Whitaker


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> Has anyone answered these yet?


The list proves how easy it is to write something in error but that the response could take forever. As the list is not very thoughtful, I'm going to only provide some brief, off the cuff remarks.

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is Not Taught Anywhere in the Bible.

That the Scriptures are God-breathed and the very words of Almighty God is taught throughout the Bible. That man lives by every Word that comes out of the mouth of God is taught in the Bible. Roman Catholics seem to forget that what they are arguing _for_ is to place something at the same level of authority as the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is self-evident from the Scriptures for who else can compete with God as an authority? It is not up to us to prove that God's Word is authoratative for life and doctrine, it is up to the person who wants to add another authority to prove that the other authority is equal with Scripture.


2. The Bible Indicates that in Addition to the Written Word, We Are to Accept Oral Tradition.

Define what you mean by oral tradition? If by this you mean that somehow, somebody has played the "pass the secret" game for 1800 years until the Immaculate Conception is to be accepted as dogma and required for salvation where the Church knew nothing of such a doctrine 1800 years previously then this I reject.

The question isn't whether or not we listen to the things our forebears have taught us and whether it has any authority but whether or not what they tell us carries with it the same authority as the Word.

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

It is the teaching of the Apostles that is the foundation of the Church and that is contained in the Word alone.

4. Christ Tells Us to Submit to the Authority of the Church.

Duh.

5. Scripture Itself States that It Is Insufficient of Itself as a Teacher, but Rather Needs an Interpreter.

The requirement for a teacher is not a defect in the Scriptures themselves but simply an acknowledgement that anything that needs to be interpreted or taught properly requires somebody to accurately teach it.

6. The First Christians Did Not Have a Complete Bible.

No, they had the Apostles. The Apostles are dead but their doctrines, upon which the Church is built, are contained in the New Testament.

7. The Church Produced the Bible and Not Vice-Versa.

No, God breathed out the Scriptures by inspiring men. The Church hears the voice of her Bridegroom but the Church did not produce His voice.

8. The Idea of the Scripture's Authority Existing Apart from the Authority of the Teaching Church is Utterly Foreign to the Early Church.

Duh. So is the idea that the teaching of the Church somehow had equal ultimacy with God's Word.

9. Heresiarchs and Heretical Movements Based Their Doctrines on Scripture Interpreted Apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

And the largest heretical movement has created its doctrines out of whole cloth and defined them as dogma based on the traditions and teaching of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. It just proves that when the tree is corrupt that it doesn't matter how united you are - you'll still twist the Word of God to your own destruction.

10. The Canon of the Bible Was Not Settled until the 4th Century.

Do you mean that God didn't know until the 4th Century? Further, why doesn't this author be honest, if he is Roman Catholic, and say that they didn't get it right because they added 7 more books at the Council of Trent.

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

Do they mean to say that the Bible knows nothing of the Church? I've read something about the Church in the Scriptures. The Church is certainly a Biblical authority. The Church was able to identify the Books of the Bible because Christ's sheep know Him and hear His voice.

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

Yes it does.

13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts Is Extant

But God has providentially preserved manuscripts to determine what He inspired.

14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.

And yet the Roman Catholic Church accept the Scriptures as inerrant and infallible as a point of dogma.

15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

Not if you read Greek and Hebrew.

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

Thanks to a corrupt Church that kept it from the people.

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

Yes it did.

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

Yes, there are many doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church that do this. Namely, Roman Catholic doctrine produces the fruit of men that are twice as fit for Hell.

Oh, they meant the doctrine that God's Word is alone ultimately authoratative for life and doctrine...

God's Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. His word is profitable to make me wise unto salvation.

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

Why? Does God not know what the interpretation of a given passage of Scripture is?

This is a point of weakness for the Roman Catholic Church. If they were honest about this point then they would produce the killer commentary. What is the interpretation of any given passage of the Bible? They don't have such a commentary and have only defined 7 verses! At least we have Owen on Hebrews!

20. The Protestant Bible is missing 7 Entire Books.

Praise God that I won't have to stand before the judgment throne of God to explain to Him why I added *7 Entire Books* to His Revelation and I pity the men that have.

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

Thanks Doctor Phil. I'll be sure to give him a hug when I see him in glory!


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Oh, SNAP!


----------



## sotzo

Here is the "nail in the coffin" In my humble opinion.

We are subjective beings that must interpret from inside our skin. Practically speaking, one could claim to an have authority backing authority backing authority. However, once you get the the final authority (in this case Rome) one must still interpret the promulgations of that authority. We don't escape being in our own skin just because you have a magesterium. Would there be a need for canon lawyers in the Roman Catholic church if the edicts of Rome did not need interpreting? 

Now, Rome will say that without the magesterium it is everyman, armed with a Bible, for himself. But this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater (in pedestrian terms) and not representative of what Protestant theology has historically taught about the role of the Church. 

The Scriptures are not intended by God so that we could understand every doctrine perfectly...nor so we would not disagree with each other. However, they are entirely and utterly sufficient so that we can be made right with Him and be "thoroughly equipped for every good work".


----------

