"I am convinced that the fight for the family, and the free citizen, and everything decent, must now be waged by the one fighting form of Christianity." - G.K. Chesterton
Ad Jesum per Mariam
...if you genuinely wish to reach a high level of prayer in all honesty and without falling into the traps that the devil sets for those who pray, SAY your Rosary everyday... St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort
Monday, January 26, 2015
The Problem of Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone or Bible Alone) was believed to be an implicit interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 that says “All Scriptures is God-breathed (inspired).” It is the belief where Bible is the only authority that can be used for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (New International Version).
Protestants or any Sola Scriptura believer believes in the inspiration of the scripture because the Bible says it is inspired. They may have faith on that belief but it commits a flaw of circular reasoning fallacy where it is tantamount to saying that, “The Bible is true because the Bible says so that it is true” - where the state of being a false reasoning makes it more evident that it is wrong. It is indeed true that scripture states that scripture is inspired but scripture does not prove that it is inspired. In the Roman Catholicism, It shares the Protestant belief that all scriptures is inspired. Yet, it also made certain which of the alleged writings were really from God because historically speaking, many writings were coming from nowhere at that time where the New Testament canon [(Greek: kanon = measuring rod, rule, norm):the authoritative collection of Sacred Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Canon is the final collection of the writings in the Bible which
were declared as God-breathed or inspired.] was not yet finally completed. There was the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, and many more. Early Christians most certainly had a hard time to dispute with themselves which of the writings were inspired or not. So if one will use his commonsense by looking back to the Bible’s historicity especially on how it came about as to what it is today, he will definitely arrive at the thought of the probability that an organization had an authority to know and decide which must be considered and believed to be an inspired writing from what were not. The problem is that almost all of the Bible Alone believers could be presumed to be persons where authenticity for them can be proven when it is felt as spirit like their belief to the Bible but lacking of the authenticity of the flesh when they could not trace how the Bible came as it is for it cannot in any way made of spirit; the pages of the Bible were only made of papers. Therefore the history of the Bible can be checked, just as one investigates the origin of the papers used in a book.
2 Timothy 3:16 justifies Sola Scriptura as it is believed. However, Sola Scriptura believers never realized in history that early Christians have no compiled New Testament until year 393AD. So, the words, “All Scriptures” in 2 Timothy 3:16 as Paul meant refers ONLY to the Old Testament and was LATER ON used to include the New Testament when the early Christians closed the canon of the scriptures which they firmly believed to be inspired or God-breathed. It is uncommonsense not to notice that Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy will be believed to be included already in the New Testament when different sacred authors where on different time and places when they were writing the Word of God in scrolls or in parchments that will be included and will complete the New Testament. It may be presumed without any doubt that early Christians that Paul evangelized do not yet know that there are four written Gospels that will be included in the New Testament which were known to us today. It is ridiculous to conceive that writings at that time would be compiled in a snap making the New Testament given the long distances of the places that divides the authors geographically and was close to impossible to produce the Bible on that condition. Such implications contrary to these theories are highly unacceptable if Sola Scriptura is believed to be true and biblical.
IF SOLA SCRIPTURA IS BIBLICAL, THEN IT MUST BE HISTORICAL
If Sola Scriptura is biblical, can we trace it from the early Christians that they do believed in it and made churches like the alleged christian churches we now see today? For if it is biblical, we can see the evidence in history that many Christians who had the Bible made their own churches in order to baptize and evangelize the pagans all around the world! But there is no record in history of EVEN A SINGLE Christian church that flourished as a single fire will do in a mountain of dry grass like how Christian churches at present is flourishing by thousands after thousands of denominations. It is an asininity therefore of mine if I reasoned out that Sola Scriptura is biblical when early Christians of old never had any recorded teaching about it nor established a church that will be known to us today. And, if Sola Scriptura is true and taught by the early Christians, why there are no writings existed about it that were used to refute the “unbiblicality” of the Roman Catholicism which existed for two millennia up to now? Aside from that, Paul, Peter, John, and others were biblical personage. Therefore, they all have Christian contemporaries who believed in Sola Scriptura if they have taught it to them. But no. Never will you read Apostle John’s contemporary, Ignatius of Antioch, teaching Sola Scriptura. Even if one would do a research about the early Christians who have writings that were kept so much so that they were history old Christians, never will that one read that they taught about Sola Scriptura unlike Matt Slick and others who have so many written piece about it.
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and unhistorical and if one will follow the train of events written in the New Testament and in the written works of the early Christians or of the early Christian Fathers, one will undoubtedly realize that Sola Scriptura is missing in their teachings. And if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you must know that you are missing the written history of everything for what is biblical must also reflect on history (although the Bible is not a historical book and does not convey precise historical information) for it is brainlessness to believe that the scriptures of God were spared from history where no one dared to say something about it and written books about it from its beginnings when it was handed on from teachers to students of the faith.
In conclusion, to be an alien about the history of the Bible and the history of the early Christians who left written teachings about it is like disproving the fact that Christ became a man of history and he was just as imaginary as a mythology. If Sola Scriptura is biblical, then it must be put to the test by checking the history of the early Christians who preached about it. If no recorded preaching, then it is unbiblical. If the claim is true, then believers must not be averse to history of the Bible and the early Christian people.
New International Version of the Bible
Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church by Stephen K. Ray
YOUCAT: Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church by Ignatius Press San Francisco
Catechism of the Catholic Church by Word and Life Publications/ECCCE/CBCP
The Faith Explained Revised Edition by Leo J. Trese