Paul explicitly says to keep our traditions in the bible
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter
>Sola Scriptura
In the earliest days of the church, there was no canon of scripture, so what were those Christians supposed to do? Further, the Bible does not list a canon for you and doesn't even say that it is the only authority.
>Sola Fide
James Chapter 2.
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? - James 2:14-21 RSV-CE
It’s funny how his best solution of how to synchronize James with his teachings was to assume James was wrong.
If the pope ever behaved the way Luther or Calvin did, Protestants would never stop talking about it.
This is really the best one. If they were any kind of slam dunk they would have existed at least in the few hundred years after Christ. They do not, but the Catholic Church does.
Tradition came before Scripture and is how the Gospels were spread before being written. There’s at least two times in the NT that tradition is mentioned that never occur previously in the Bible. One is where Matthew says there’s a prophecy that the Messiah will be a Nazarene. The other being Jesus pointing to the seat of Moses as authoritative (Matthew 23:1-3) but the seat of Moses was never mentioned in the OT. You can also just ask them where Jesus ever condemned tradition that doesn’t conflict with His commandments, He never did.
People forget what the New Testament is - it's mostly just letters of instruction to churches. I personally don't see that a canonical compilation was even intended originally.
As a young Protestant growing up in one denomination, when I went to church with friends in another denomination who had different beliefs on not only the forms of worship but even basic matters of soteriology (such as the necessity of baptism) - all from the same Bible, it made me wonder how I could ever be sure I had the right interpretation.
Sincere, God-fearing Christians from different denominations could confidently flip around the New Testament and show strong scriptural support for their beliefs and practices. How could I ever be sure?
It made me feel fairly early that if the Bible had been meant to be all I need to know what I must do to be saved, why wouldn’t it just start off with a plain, straightforward list of steps rather than scattering them around throughout dozens of books and letters? Growing up in a denomination that believed that all other denominations were doomed to the eternal flames of Hell (the scandal when I dated a girl from another denomination!), this terrified me. How could I ever be sure?
Several have provided good verses about Sola Scriptura and, of course, the paradox. I might add 1 Timothy 3:15. But I also point out that one might argue that no one actually practices Sola Scriptura. Well, perhaps someone picks up a Bible and builds a practice of faith around it with no prior influence. The rest of us read and interpret scripture in a context and with the interpretive influence of those who taught us our faith and the filter of our own worldview and prejudices. Every denomination I experienced as a Protestant has at least some form of a little-m magesterium that keeps them all on the same page. Scripture alone could not be God’s plan when it has led to countless different denominations and probably several notable heresies.
I think this comes from Protestants comparing the Bible to the Quran.
The Quran seems to appear fully formed in the historical record because it was the work of a small group of people in a relatively short period of time.
On the other hand, the Bible gathers together books written by different authors over a span of many centuries, living in very different historical contexts.
We even have records of the debates that defined the specific contents of the Christian Bible. There’s nothing similar for the Quran, since the details of how it was compiled have been embellished, forgotten or erased.
Thus, it is far easier to take the Quran as the one and only source of knowledge, because it was intentionally made to be used that way.
I personally wouldn’t bother arguing against sola fide, per se, because you end up falling into the trap of arguing that Catholicism teaches “faith + works,” which we don’t. This is a good primer that, to me, does a good job of speaking the language of Protestantism in a way that is helpful: https://jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone
As far as sola scriptura, not only does the Bible not explicitly teach it, but it explicitly teaches against it. For example, John 20:30-31; John 21:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 1: 13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Timothy 3:14-17, Galatians 1:12. I’m sure there are others.
They are not biblical and thus fail their own test.
Christ never said to write a book. He said to teach all that He taught.
The faith would have failed from the start because the first NT books were not written until decades after Christ died.
Mostly, they’re unbiblical though. The Solas didn’t exist until 1500 years after Christ.
James I think addresses both, or at least faith without works. Paul also says keep thr faith that was taught to you both in letter and in word or something.
Also, minor note, having faith does require a small act of work, no matter how small.
Firstly,
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul tells us to uphold tradition. (Verse explains itself).
Secondly,
James 2:24 the only time the word 'faith' and 'alone' are ever mentioned together is when the bible condemns it. James 2:24 states that a person is considered righteous by what they do, not by faith alone.
And finally,
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that scripture is the ultimate and final source of Authority to make all decisions. Therefore, Sola Scriptura's teaching is contradictory to itself.
The bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15
Also in Peter, on the phone, can't look up, it says that private interpretation of scripture leads to perdition
So any sola scripture person should ask themselves, am I infallible? (Or my pastor) Because otherwise I'm in danger . But congrats, if such person claims to be infallible, then that's the same every denomination even JW claim
Plus the moment they follow somebody else's interpretation, they are just following a human tradition
Strip mall Christianity. I don't agree with that pastor so I'm going to start my own church and interpret the bible the way I like.
Protestantism from the very beginning.
1) Catholics write the Bible and formed the canon
2) James 2:20-22
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
Sola Scriptura:
Scripture Alone presupposes there is an infallible canon of the bible. However, this refutes itself because you can’t obtain an infallible canon without looking at somewhere outside of Scripture, and since ONLY Scripture is infallible, it invalidates itself.
Some might say the Bible is a fallible canon of infallible books, but that invalidates Sola Scriptura’s claim that Scripture is infallible, since a fallible canon implies that the list of infallible books may contain errors, and books on the canon may contain error themselves. This basically refutes itself because the only logical conclusion is that the bible, being a fallible canon of infallible books, is a fallible canon of fallible books.
For Tradition to no longer be reliable and only Scripture is, according to Sola Scriptura, you need to find a passage where it says that Apostolic Tradition is not reliable or no longer reliable after the apostolic age. Of course you can’t find one that pretty clearly states or implies it.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture” in Greek is actually better translated as “Every Scripture”, meaning that each individual book of the Scriptures is inspired. Protestants read the “useful for….” part as supporting Sola Scriptura, but their reading would mean that you can take any ONE book from the bible, like say Genesis and say that the book is inspired and is the sole source of authority. There’s also nothing in it that says Scripture Alone is divinely inspired and useful, nor is there anything that invalidates Tradition’s authority in any way.
John 21:25 (RSVCE)
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Sola Scriptura is self refuting. There is no verse stating to only use scripture and there is no list of which books are considered scripture in scripture. That being said, the best way to go about changing someone’s mind is asking why they believe something to be true. If you can understand why someone thinks something, you can better understand what to ask to convince them.
for Sola fide, other people have mentioned certain passages to counter it. But i wanna bring to light another passage that can help with the stuff mentioned in St. Paul's Epistles
2 Peter 3:15-16
"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved **brother Paul wrote to you** according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. ***There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction***, as they do the other scriptures."
It clearly states that St. Paul's letters will have confusing things and that people will twist it, either through their fault or by ignorance
Just remember this when a Prot brings up "proof" of sola fide in his letters. Theres always a Catholic explanation.
Edit: Also note how St. Peter only specifies that Paul's letters are hard to understand and people can easily twist them, but not people like St. James, St. Jude, etc.
Great, so why do all Ancient Churches have different textual traditions if Sola Scriptura was true?
We had the Vulgate, Peshitta, the LXX, and hell, why the Masoretic Text and not the Vulgate? It's not like the Jews don't have a horse in this race.
The problem with Sola anything is that it reduces Ironcially the faith to a formula in my view.
Look at Sola Fide for example. Okay, faith alone saves,
Is that it ? Is it just a simple assent when it comes to faith ? Or is it something more ?
For Sola Scriptura, it's easy to prove by simply asking "what are the Christian essentials?" A Protestant cannot provide a list without denying a valid Tradition to the Protestant mind.
For Sola Fide, ask "can one lose their salvation?" If they can, ask how they keep it. Anything they say bar "they stop having faith in Jesus" is some sort of work, and can be pointed out. If they say "once saved, always saved" give the very explicit Biblical verses that talk about one loosing their faith.
> Sola Scriptura
There are a few.
1. It's self defeating. Sola Scriptura requires any doctrine to be explicitly taught in Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture.
2. Scripture only exists because of Tradition. Who compiled the Bible? Why do they have the authority to do that? Where is that authority now?
> Sola Fide
The Epistle of James.
Against Sola Scriptura, a repost of something I wrote before:
I would reply that English academics tried their own Solus Textus and it turned them into postmodernists in the end. It will turn the Protestants into postchristians too.
English academics used also to believe that the text alone determined meaning, and no outside authority, not even the author, was needed. But this doesn't work, for two reasons:
1: For any even minimally complex text, there will be multiple good-faith interpretations that are consistent with the text, but not with each other. For example, both the interpretation that Romeo and Juliet valorizes love at first sight and the interpretation that it is a cautionary tragedy about the perils of letting your passions rule you are consistent with the text, but not with each other.
2: When you read any sentence at all, most of the meaning already exists in your head before you begin. For example, my previous sentence included the words "meaning," "read," and "exists." Where did you learn what those words mean? Not from the text, but from an authority outside of the text. Indeed you cannot read any text at all without first accepting a tradition which tells you what the words even mean.
So, what are your options?
Well, perhaps at first the different personal interpretations duke it out with each other, with each interpreter claiming his take is the true take because he's smarter and/or holier than the others. Protestants are doing this right now. English academics had a grand old time of this for a while, but soon realized that there was no way to actually settle the argument. So they moved to the second phase.
In the second phase, once you realize that text alone does not determine meaning, you have two choices. You could accept authority, that something/one outside the text is needed to determine its meaning. In English academia, this would mean accepting that only Shakespeare can definitively tell us what his words meant. In religion, this means becoming Catholic. But the central modern sin is to pridefully reject authority, so usually folks opt for the other option: succumb to the postmodernist mind virus and proclaim texts have no meaning at all, and then spend your life trying to use texts to convince people that texts have no meaning.
So, Bible-believing Protestant Christians, all those weirdo postmodern academics that you rightly roll your eyes at? They became that because they tried to with Shakespeare what you're trying to do with the Bible. They're just a little further along in the process than you are: they are every Protestant's future if he does not repent.
James writes in his epistle that both faith and works go towards salvation. The nail in the coffin is the fact that Luther tried to remove James from the Bible, along with Revelation
The church is older than the Bible, and members of the church (St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Peter) wrote large sections of the New Testament. If we are saved through scripture alone, how exactly did that work before St. Paul started writing his letters?
The first written piece of New Testament scripture is Saint Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. In the very second chapter he writes:
13 And for this[a] reason we are indeed[b] giving-thanks to God unceasingly: because having received the word of God heard from us[c], you accepted not the word of humans, but, as it truly is, the word of God, which also is at-work[d] in you, the ones believing.
Before any New Testament scripture was written, they had received the Word of God. Not word about God from humans, but the very Word of God. How did they receive it if there was no Scripture written yet? Well, God, speaking through Saint Paul, makes it very clear: They heard it from them (the Apostles).
So in the very first piece of New Testament scripture we see the Word of God attesting very clearly through Scripture that the Word of God is also transmitted orally and not just through Scripture. Later, in the same letter, Saint Paul tells the Church to keep every teaching given to them, be it orally or through Scripture. We in the Church call this Sacred Tradition
1. **Sola Scriptura** \- This doctrine cannot actually be proven by Scripture alone. It thus creates a logical paradox. How can one believe in Sola Scriptura as the only infallible rule of faith and practice if one cannot prove said doctrine with that infallible rule? But for those who value the inerrancy of Scripture (as they ought to), Scripture indicates the deposit of faith was transferred in two ways, not one:
2 Thess 2:15
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by **word of mouth** or by **our letter**."
**2. Sola Fide**
James 2:23-25
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. **24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.** 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
That's the short answer. For long answer, study the council of Trent, understanding of what Catholic doctrine calls "faith".
Luther added the word, "alone" to Romans 3:28 so that the Luther Bible reads:
“for we reckon a man to be justified by faith alone without deeds of law”
where the Greek reads:
“for we reckon a man to be justified by faith without deeds of law”
This one word gave rise to the Protestant belief of “Sola Fide” or Faith Alone. Catholics don’t believe in it the way Protestants do as it was an added word that the Early Church Fathers never even dreamed of.
>Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.
>Sola fide.
"Faith without works is dead."
Those who disagree with these arguments are just babbling.
The gospels were written 150 years after Jesus. Were the early Christians not Christian? How about the disciples?
The bible very literally comes from Tradition. It does not exist without Tradition.
The fact early scholars agreed it was allegorical. Adam and Eve, creation of Earth in 6 days. Even in the early days of the church these notions would be dismissed.
Nowhere in the Bible does it tell anyone to be "Bible only." So it is self contradictory. Big whoops.
Paul explicitly says to keep our traditions in the bible So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter
Paul also doesn’t invalidate the authority of tradition after the Apostolic Age
>Sola Scriptura In the earliest days of the church, there was no canon of scripture, so what were those Christians supposed to do? Further, the Bible does not list a canon for you and doesn't even say that it is the only authority. >Sola Fide James Chapter 2. What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? - James 2:14-21 RSV-CE
> James 2:14-21 RSV-CE Lord, this verse goes hard
Martin Luther never had an answer for it.
It’s funny how his best solution of how to synchronize James with his teachings was to assume James was wrong. If the pope ever behaved the way Luther or Calvin did, Protestants would never stop talking about it.
Hey let's follow the guy who thinks he's smarter than the apostle who saw the transfiguration.
Thanks for the response
'Neither of them existed before the 16th century when Luther started Protestantism. Protestantism is ahistorical.'
**replies with 27 random quotes from scripture with a screed about the antichrist to prove you wrong or something*
Rome the whore of babylon!! Francis antichrist!!
😭😭😭
DAGON FISH HAT
Feeneyite?
This is really the best one. If they were any kind of slam dunk they would have existed at least in the few hundred years after Christ. They do not, but the Catholic Church does.
"The water is purest closer to the source."
Tradition came before Scripture and is how the Gospels were spread before being written. There’s at least two times in the NT that tradition is mentioned that never occur previously in the Bible. One is where Matthew says there’s a prophecy that the Messiah will be a Nazarene. The other being Jesus pointing to the seat of Moses as authoritative (Matthew 23:1-3) but the seat of Moses was never mentioned in the OT. You can also just ask them where Jesus ever condemned tradition that doesn’t conflict with His commandments, He never did.
This is the easiest argument IMO. The Bible came after the Church.
People forget what the New Testament is - it's mostly just letters of instruction to churches. I personally don't see that a canonical compilation was even intended originally.
As a young Protestant growing up in one denomination, when I went to church with friends in another denomination who had different beliefs on not only the forms of worship but even basic matters of soteriology (such as the necessity of baptism) - all from the same Bible, it made me wonder how I could ever be sure I had the right interpretation. Sincere, God-fearing Christians from different denominations could confidently flip around the New Testament and show strong scriptural support for their beliefs and practices. How could I ever be sure? It made me feel fairly early that if the Bible had been meant to be all I need to know what I must do to be saved, why wouldn’t it just start off with a plain, straightforward list of steps rather than scattering them around throughout dozens of books and letters? Growing up in a denomination that believed that all other denominations were doomed to the eternal flames of Hell (the scandal when I dated a girl from another denomination!), this terrified me. How could I ever be sure? Several have provided good verses about Sola Scriptura and, of course, the paradox. I might add 1 Timothy 3:15. But I also point out that one might argue that no one actually practices Sola Scriptura. Well, perhaps someone picks up a Bible and builds a practice of faith around it with no prior influence. The rest of us read and interpret scripture in a context and with the interpretive influence of those who taught us our faith and the filter of our own worldview and prejudices. Every denomination I experienced as a Protestant has at least some form of a little-m magesterium that keeps them all on the same page. Scripture alone could not be God’s plan when it has led to countless different denominations and probably several notable heresies.
Thanks for sharing your experience
I think this comes from Protestants comparing the Bible to the Quran. The Quran seems to appear fully formed in the historical record because it was the work of a small group of people in a relatively short period of time. On the other hand, the Bible gathers together books written by different authors over a span of many centuries, living in very different historical contexts. We even have records of the debates that defined the specific contents of the Christian Bible. There’s nothing similar for the Quran, since the details of how it was compiled have been embellished, forgotten or erased. Thus, it is far easier to take the Quran as the one and only source of knowledge, because it was intentionally made to be used that way.
Show me explicitly where sola scripture is found in the Bible.
I personally wouldn’t bother arguing against sola fide, per se, because you end up falling into the trap of arguing that Catholicism teaches “faith + works,” which we don’t. This is a good primer that, to me, does a good job of speaking the language of Protestantism in a way that is helpful: https://jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone As far as sola scriptura, not only does the Bible not explicitly teach it, but it explicitly teaches against it. For example, John 20:30-31; John 21:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 1: 13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Timothy 3:14-17, Galatians 1:12. I’m sure there are others.
They are not biblical and thus fail their own test. Christ never said to write a book. He said to teach all that He taught. The faith would have failed from the start because the first NT books were not written until decades after Christ died. Mostly, they’re unbiblical though. The Solas didn’t exist until 1500 years after Christ.
The Book of James also clearly tells us it is not only faith but works that are important. Show me your faith and I will show you my works.
James I think addresses both, or at least faith without works. Paul also says keep thr faith that was taught to you both in letter and in word or something. Also, minor note, having faith does require a small act of work, no matter how small.
Firstly, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul tells us to uphold tradition. (Verse explains itself). Secondly, James 2:24 the only time the word 'faith' and 'alone' are ever mentioned together is when the bible condemns it. James 2:24 states that a person is considered righteous by what they do, not by faith alone. And finally, Nowhere in the Bible does it say that scripture is the ultimate and final source of Authority to make all decisions. Therefore, Sola Scriptura's teaching is contradictory to itself.
The bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15 Also in Peter, on the phone, can't look up, it says that private interpretation of scripture leads to perdition So any sola scripture person should ask themselves, am I infallible? (Or my pastor) Because otherwise I'm in danger . But congrats, if such person claims to be infallible, then that's the same every denomination even JW claim Plus the moment they follow somebody else's interpretation, they are just following a human tradition
Strip mall Christianity. I don't agree with that pastor so I'm going to start my own church and interpret the bible the way I like. Protestantism from the very beginning.
1) Catholics write the Bible and formed the canon 2) James 2:20-22 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
Sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone presupposes there is an infallible canon of the bible. However, this refutes itself because you can’t obtain an infallible canon without looking at somewhere outside of Scripture, and since ONLY Scripture is infallible, it invalidates itself. Some might say the Bible is a fallible canon of infallible books, but that invalidates Sola Scriptura’s claim that Scripture is infallible, since a fallible canon implies that the list of infallible books may contain errors, and books on the canon may contain error themselves. This basically refutes itself because the only logical conclusion is that the bible, being a fallible canon of infallible books, is a fallible canon of fallible books. For Tradition to no longer be reliable and only Scripture is, according to Sola Scriptura, you need to find a passage where it says that Apostolic Tradition is not reliable or no longer reliable after the apostolic age. Of course you can’t find one that pretty clearly states or implies it. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture” in Greek is actually better translated as “Every Scripture”, meaning that each individual book of the Scriptures is inspired. Protestants read the “useful for….” part as supporting Sola Scriptura, but their reading would mean that you can take any ONE book from the bible, like say Genesis and say that the book is inspired and is the sole source of authority. There’s also nothing in it that says Scripture Alone is divinely inspired and useful, nor is there anything that invalidates Tradition’s authority in any way.
John 21:25 (RSVCE) But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Sola Scriptura is self refuting. There is no verse stating to only use scripture and there is no list of which books are considered scripture in scripture. That being said, the best way to go about changing someone’s mind is asking why they believe something to be true. If you can understand why someone thinks something, you can better understand what to ask to convince them.
It’s not in the Bible haha
for Sola fide, other people have mentioned certain passages to counter it. But i wanna bring to light another passage that can help with the stuff mentioned in St. Paul's Epistles 2 Peter 3:15-16 "And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved **brother Paul wrote to you** according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. ***There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction***, as they do the other scriptures." It clearly states that St. Paul's letters will have confusing things and that people will twist it, either through their fault or by ignorance Just remember this when a Prot brings up "proof" of sola fide in his letters. Theres always a Catholic explanation. Edit: Also note how St. Peter only specifies that Paul's letters are hard to understand and people can easily twist them, but not people like St. James, St. Jude, etc.
Great, so why do all Ancient Churches have different textual traditions if Sola Scriptura was true? We had the Vulgate, Peshitta, the LXX, and hell, why the Masoretic Text and not the Vulgate? It's not like the Jews don't have a horse in this race.
The problem with Sola anything is that it reduces Ironcially the faith to a formula in my view. Look at Sola Fide for example. Okay, faith alone saves, Is that it ? Is it just a simple assent when it comes to faith ? Or is it something more ?
For Sola Scriptura, it's easy to prove by simply asking "what are the Christian essentials?" A Protestant cannot provide a list without denying a valid Tradition to the Protestant mind. For Sola Fide, ask "can one lose their salvation?" If they can, ask how they keep it. Anything they say bar "they stop having faith in Jesus" is some sort of work, and can be pointed out. If they say "once saved, always saved" give the very explicit Biblical verses that talk about one loosing their faith.
Sola fide was made up by Luther, who was allegedly talking to the devil when these "doctrines" were created.
> Sola Scriptura There are a few. 1. It's self defeating. Sola Scriptura requires any doctrine to be explicitly taught in Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture. 2. Scripture only exists because of Tradition. Who compiled the Bible? Why do they have the authority to do that? Where is that authority now? > Sola Fide The Epistle of James.
Against Sola Scriptura, a repost of something I wrote before: I would reply that English academics tried their own Solus Textus and it turned them into postmodernists in the end. It will turn the Protestants into postchristians too. English academics used also to believe that the text alone determined meaning, and no outside authority, not even the author, was needed. But this doesn't work, for two reasons: 1: For any even minimally complex text, there will be multiple good-faith interpretations that are consistent with the text, but not with each other. For example, both the interpretation that Romeo and Juliet valorizes love at first sight and the interpretation that it is a cautionary tragedy about the perils of letting your passions rule you are consistent with the text, but not with each other. 2: When you read any sentence at all, most of the meaning already exists in your head before you begin. For example, my previous sentence included the words "meaning," "read," and "exists." Where did you learn what those words mean? Not from the text, but from an authority outside of the text. Indeed you cannot read any text at all without first accepting a tradition which tells you what the words even mean. So, what are your options? Well, perhaps at first the different personal interpretations duke it out with each other, with each interpreter claiming his take is the true take because he's smarter and/or holier than the others. Protestants are doing this right now. English academics had a grand old time of this for a while, but soon realized that there was no way to actually settle the argument. So they moved to the second phase. In the second phase, once you realize that text alone does not determine meaning, you have two choices. You could accept authority, that something/one outside the text is needed to determine its meaning. In English academia, this would mean accepting that only Shakespeare can definitively tell us what his words meant. In religion, this means becoming Catholic. But the central modern sin is to pridefully reject authority, so usually folks opt for the other option: succumb to the postmodernist mind virus and proclaim texts have no meaning at all, and then spend your life trying to use texts to convince people that texts have no meaning. So, Bible-believing Protestant Christians, all those weirdo postmodern academics that you rightly roll your eyes at? They became that because they tried to with Shakespeare what you're trying to do with the Bible. They're just a little further along in the process than you are: they are every Protestant's future if he does not repent.
James writes in his epistle that both faith and works go towards salvation. The nail in the coffin is the fact that Luther tried to remove James from the Bible, along with Revelation
The church is older than the Bible, and members of the church (St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Peter) wrote large sections of the New Testament. If we are saved through scripture alone, how exactly did that work before St. Paul started writing his letters?
The first written piece of New Testament scripture is Saint Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. In the very second chapter he writes: 13 And for this[a] reason we are indeed[b] giving-thanks to God unceasingly: because having received the word of God heard from us[c], you accepted not the word of humans, but, as it truly is, the word of God, which also is at-work[d] in you, the ones believing. Before any New Testament scripture was written, they had received the Word of God. Not word about God from humans, but the very Word of God. How did they receive it if there was no Scripture written yet? Well, God, speaking through Saint Paul, makes it very clear: They heard it from them (the Apostles). So in the very first piece of New Testament scripture we see the Word of God attesting very clearly through Scripture that the Word of God is also transmitted orally and not just through Scripture. Later, in the same letter, Saint Paul tells the Church to keep every teaching given to them, be it orally or through Scripture. We in the Church call this Sacred Tradition
There is no scripture that supports Sola Scriptura, and St James says Faith without works is dead.
1. **Sola Scriptura** \- This doctrine cannot actually be proven by Scripture alone. It thus creates a logical paradox. How can one believe in Sola Scriptura as the only infallible rule of faith and practice if one cannot prove said doctrine with that infallible rule? But for those who value the inerrancy of Scripture (as they ought to), Scripture indicates the deposit of faith was transferred in two ways, not one: 2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by **word of mouth** or by **our letter**." **2. Sola Fide** James 2:23-25 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. **24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.** 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? That's the short answer. For long answer, study the council of Trent, understanding of what Catholic doctrine calls "faith".
Sola Scriptura: Tradition and Magisterium precedes canon of the New Testament.
God would not want us to neglect our intellect, observation, and discernment, as the same are gifts from God.
Luther added the word, "alone" to Romans 3:28 so that the Luther Bible reads: “for we reckon a man to be justified by faith alone without deeds of law” where the Greek reads: “for we reckon a man to be justified by faith without deeds of law” This one word gave rise to the Protestant belief of “Sola Fide” or Faith Alone. Catholics don’t believe in it the way Protestants do as it was an added word that the Early Church Fathers never even dreamed of.
If it’s sola one it can’t be the other. So pick either scripture or faith. Their own logic says they can only have one. :P
>Sola Scriptura Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. >Sola fide. "Faith without works is dead." Those who disagree with these arguments are just babbling.
The gospels were written 150 years after Jesus. Were the early Christians not Christian? How about the disciples? The bible very literally comes from Tradition. It does not exist without Tradition.
The fact early scholars agreed it was allegorical. Adam and Eve, creation of Earth in 6 days. Even in the early days of the church these notions would be dismissed.
Altough it's related, that (Bible literalism) is not what Sola Scriptura means.
Where in the Bible do we find a list of what books belong in the Bible?