The Problem with 'Sola Scriptura'

#shorts

[Narikku]

Sola Scriptura does not say deny the traditions.

Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

In other words, every other rule of faith and practice is fallible. It does not say that there are not other rules. It says that these rules are not infallible. Fallible does not mean always wrong. Fallible simply means able to *be* wrong.

[johnnypop-tart]

my biggest problem with Sola Scriptura is that is comes from a guy who, while saying that, also was ripping books from the bible. you can't say bible alone and then start ripping it apart.

this and baptism are the reasons why i reject the protestant reformation and became catholic

[tyrellemarcuspillay]

A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text

[NewNoise]

The way I see it is this way. If people do not want to accept the Truth. No matter what prove you show them, they will refuse to believe, have faith and accept the Truth.

[BornAgainRN]

Roman Catholics actually have a bigger problem trying to refute sola scriptura. Since only the magisterium can declare what books are scripture and how to interpret them, then they would need a third infallible source outside of both scripture and the magisterium in order to affirm the infallibility of the Magisterium. Because if only the magisterium can declare if a book is scripture or not, and they are utilizing the Scriptures to validate the infallibility and authority of the magisterium, then that’s just circular reasoning. They’re using the magisterium to affirm the Scriptures, and then using the Scriptures to affirm the magisterium. In this way, they’re really being no different than Jehovah’s Witnesses who use the Watchtower to defend their translation and interpretation of their New World Translation. Or Muslims who use Mohammed to defend the inspiration of the Quran, and then using the Quran to affirm the validity of the “prophet“ Muhammad. I have never heard a good response to this by Catholic apologists. I have always found this argument to be extremely weak and ineffective, yet it’s still being used.

[Hypnotoad]

Pay close attention to the words “either” and “or”… which are conjunctions between two different clauses. These conjunctions indicate one may have either received the full message by word, OR by letter. Nevertheless, they must constitute the same message. And according to verse 5, this was a message that Paul had already delivered once before. Not to mention the disciples were also told to stand firm in the traditions they “were” taught.. how does that leave room for future revelation?

[barelyprotestant]

This is an incredibly lazy and ignorant argument. Sola Scriptura does not deny the usage of Tradition. The question is, also, WHAT Traditions to follow. No Protestant worth his salt is arguing that the Roman traditions are from the Apostles, but since they aren't explicitly in the Bible they don't count. We are literally saying the Roman traditions aren't Apostolic to begin with.

[lukeyea]

You are SPOT ON buddy. This is something I’ve been trying to teach the Protestant’s also. Another thing to add and support what you say is the fact that the Bible wasn’t compiled at the time of the very First Church yet, so they had to go by word of mouth from the Apostles past down to the Bishops and priest then onto the lay people. Otherwise there wouldn’t have even been a Church today if word of mouth of the traditions wasn’t used as a form of educating the lay people. Some people don’t have enough commonsense to realise how true the Catholic faith really is. GodBless 🙏🙏🙏

[edwardstarnes]

As a Lutheran I have to agree. Sola scriptura is often confused with solo scriptura. The traditions which God gave to the apostles and to the church should be kept and used as a gide. However the scripture as the word of God is the ultimate authority. More to keep man made tradition out (the modern papacy, the practice of pennance, celibacy of the priesthood, the invocation of saints and the virgin Mary) and to retain those traditions which where given to us like the lords supper, baptism, marriage, the chooing of the clergy and countless others.

Tradition should not be disgaeded but esxamed through the eyes of scripture.

[BornAgainRN]

This also grossly misrepresents what sola scriptura is. 1 Clement does not refute what sola scriptura is. It does that mean that there are sources outside of scripture like this early epistle that a firm the Christian faith. It simply means that scripture alone is the inspired revelation from God for Christian doctrine and morals. I am shocked and disappointed that Suan thinks this is a good argument.

[agenttex]

You didnt make a case against Sola Scriptura, you made a case against the current Canon. At best your argument shows that Clement and certain other VERY EARLY documents in the history of the Church should be added to the Canon. But even if I agreed with you that by tradition, Paul is referring to doctrine that is not contained anywhere in scripture but would only be written down later by those who interacted with the apostles, that doesn't in any way refute Sola Scriptura. What Rome wants to do, which you didn't try to do in this video, is convince Protestants that we CANNOT know what the Scriptures teach apart from the Roman catholic magesterium. That if the best exegesis of scripture contradicts any point of Roman Catholic dogma, I am to ASSUME, that that interpretation MUST be wrong BECAUSE it contradicts Roman Catholic dogma. The authority of the Roman Catholic church is thus assumed A PRIORI. It is not derived from anywhere else, otherwise that other, more authoritative source could be used to refute Roman Catholic dogma. This is why we say Rome effectively holds to Sola Ecclesia.

[southbug]

The fact that there was NO Bible for over 300 years after Jesus’ resurrection tells you that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. I think that fact alone makes it obvious without even having to pull out Bible verses.

[batmaninc]

For those of you using Douay-Rheims, it’s 2 Thessalonians 2:14.

[internetenjoyer]

This is only superficially convincing. Paul's writings are early, really early; those unwritten traditions were almost certainly put in the rest of the New Testament. If not, then it's a very small catagory we're dealing with here; traditions early enough to be word of mouth, but excluded from the gospel, and also univerally acknoledged as infallible doctrine. There isn't much I can think that fits the bill, frankly, in Catholic theology. Paul isn't, say, talking about saints, or Mariology (aside probably the virgin birth), or Eccliesiology (the threefold ministry isnt there yet, or if it is, it's in an extremely undeveloped form. These things simply havent been developed yet. Now, if the doctrine of the infallible magesterium is correct, then these late developments are legistimate. But thats a seperate argument; these extrabiblical traditions cannot be what Paul is referring to here.

[cristian_]

Who’s going to tell him that St. Clement teaches justification through faith alone.

[SonicSnakeRecords]

Acts 8:30-31

30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

🇻🇦

[justinitsthatguyme]

Also 1 Timothy 3:15 - the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Of course scripture is truth too but it the canon of scripture aka the Bible came later

[AString]

The whole chapter is talking about the second coming of Christ and the coming of the anti christ. Verse 5 in the same chapter says, “Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” The idea that tradition is outside the scope of scripture, to me, is ridiculous. I’m fine with any tradition so long as it doesn’t oppose scripture and it isn’t held as dogmatic.

[jonathansoko]

Without tradition what would they have done In Those periods where scripture wasn't widely spread? Protestants seem to think only 1500s to present count 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆😆😆😆

[halo]

I love when Roman Catholics want us to believe that what St. Paul here has in mind is some oral tradition that includes their Marian dogmas, Papal infallibility, and a whole host of other dogmas. Of course the tradition (that is the apostolic faith in the scriptures) were preached first but what the apostles preached they committed to writing. And we are constantly told in Scripture to appeal to scripture. St. Peter in his second epistle says we have the prophetic word fully confirmed in the Scriptures. St. Paul says Scripture is fully God-breathed and profitable for correction, teaching, and training up in righteousness—sounds complete to me. What would you have me believe that is necessary for my salvation that the prophets and apostles did not write for themselves?