How can so many Protestants speak about "Sola Scriptura"?
The believe that every word is literally true but they do so from a Bible which has had 6 books, a psalm. various chapters, and verse cut from it which had been part of the Bible for 1,200 years. How can you attack the Catholic Church based on your Bible when the true Bible has all the support for their teachings in the books which you have eliminated?
2020-05-18T17:32:50Z
I see the cowardly Anonymous has me blocked, and yet you answer my question. I take it that you will never see my response. The Catholic Bible has had 72 books for centuries before the King James. And is it rather peculiar that many of the Catholic teachings were found in those books. It is almost as if they were chosen to be eliminated for that reason. Hmmm
?2020-05-18T17:45:32Z
Favorite Answer
Well, even if they included the deuterocanonical books, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is absolutely fallacious. Jesus did not write a Bible; he built a Church. And there was a Church before the Bible. And the Church canonized the Bible. So, how can the Bible be the sole authority? Really, how can any book? Even countries rely on their governments to interpret their constitutions.
I wouldn't be too quick to complain about texts removed from the Bible if I were you; the Roman Catholic Church has removed a number of texts that are still in Orthodox Bibles.
But I agree that "sola Scriptura" has been misapplied. It was originally advanced by Martin Luther as a principle of argument, on the grounds that otherwise he would be stuck debating Church tradition with people who felt themselves free to redefine the traditions to suit their arguments. (Which, of course, is what they chose to do.)
Actually, the parts omitted from most Protestant Bibles (though not all; I own two different Protestant translations that include them) were always carefully labeled as "deuterocanonical"--a "second canon." And we don't entirely ignore them; you can find references to them in Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion," one of the first major written defenses of Protestant views. But because Protestants, unlike Catholics, wanted every believer to own and read the Bible, it was economically more efficient to reduce the volumes printed to the primary canon, and leave the others to separate volumes which could be examined as needed.
It's also the case that NONE of the deuterocanonical material omitted from many of our Bibles was Christian writing. All of it was pre-Christian material, included in the Septuagint a couple centuries before Christ because it happened to be circulating among Jews in Alexandria at that time.
You are right , they have less ground to stand on, but as you know, they like to speak, they like to hear themselves speak, whether they speak the truth or half truths or half lies, doesn't bother them so much, they just like to hear themselves , I think they got that from Luther
Yes, each denomination insists they are teaching truth because they got their teaching from "the Bible alone". Yet there are over 6,000 Protestant denominations, the teaching of each one contradicting the teaching of the others. Truth cannot contradict truth, so obviously there is a great deal of untruth being taught. And that doesn't even include the 20,000+ so-called "non-denominational" Protestant churches. Total doctrinal chaos after just a few hundred years. Meanwhile, the one Church Jesus founded, to which He promised the fullness of God's truth, remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. You just can't beat God's plan.