Refuting the Rebuttals - Sola Scriptura Pt 2

In my ‘Sola Scriptura Part 1’ blog, I defined what Protestants mean when they talk about “Sola Scriptura”, and I showed what the early Church Fathers thought about the importance of Scripture. In Part 2 I want to answer some of the critics that disagree with Sola Scriptura and virtually all of that criticism comes from Catholicism.

So, how do the Catholic scholars refute Sola Scriptura? From my perspective via some research, Catholicism generally thinks they have a "field day" with Protestants when it comes to refuting "Sola Scriptura", with things like this: A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura. So, please take a moment to read through this list. You can easily find a number of these articles on the web, where the content may vary a little, but they seem to make these and similar points.

Now that you have read that Catholic article, let me state that these "refutations" are rather easy to dispatch. The first set are from me, just off the top of my head with a little research for each point being made in the article.

1. Not taught in the Bible. That is simply not true. 2 Tim 3:16-17 states quite the opposite. And yes, I know that point 8 attempts to "refute" these 2 verses by interjecting Paul's verbal teachings and his references to them. But, Paul was an Apostle, like Peter, James and John. They “spoke” living truth, and we have no evidence that any other people in history spoke and wrote “Scripture” once the Apostles were gone. History is conspicuously silent. I cannot think of any other historical figures who I would hold as high as the Apostles, past or present. They were specifically chosen and gifted by God for this purpose. Quoting Eph 4:11-15 doesn't make the author’s point, as it conflates the ministerial gifts (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) with their purpose, to build up the body of Christ in: 1) teaching the people about salvation in Jesus, and 2) so that they would be able to perform the works God created them to “walk in”. Once the Apostles died, it was Scripture that continued the purposes stated in Eph 4:11-15.
• I would contend that the offices of apostles and prophets have faded away, which we also see in history. Before and while the NT was being written and circulated, these offices existed, but historically, we do not see apostolic succession into the 2nd and 3rd century. Once the Apostles died, that office appears to have died with them, as it had fulfilled its purpose and passed that purpose onto the NT “Scriptures” we have today. The same seems to be true for prophets. Ephesians doesn’t say that, but it doesn’t deny it either. We still have the Apostles if we have what they taught in their writings, and we do.
• From an historical perspective, it is revisionist history to say there was apostolic succession since there are no 2nd, 3rd or 4th century church fathers claiming to be an apostle. And I would submit that Irenaeus wrote the definitive trusties (5 vol's worth) on Gnosticism, which shows the error of thinking that prophets continued beyond the 1st century. Their secret knowledge back then is no different from anyone else throughout history claiming to have the same secret prophetic gifting/office/knowledge. It also shows that prophetic teachings needed some way to prove their authenticity. 
• I might also note that this is the reason quite a few people left the charismatic movement and churches who proclaimed it (myself included). There has to be something to prove the authenticity of a prophetic utterance, to judge whether it's "of God" or "of satan" or “of the flesh”. Without that authoritative protection, people are left to believe all sorts of nonsense. And this is no different for church hierarchies, Catholic or Protestant. They too can be just as sincere, and just as sincerely wrong.
2. "Scripture" or the "Word of God" refers to oral teachings. Well, if you are an Apostle in the 1st century, then yes. But outside of that (i.e., 2nd century and beyond), how is a "newly added teaching" judged as right or wrong? Catholicism will say the church and tradition judge its truthfulness. Some Protestants say it’s the Holy Spirit giving the utterances or that new teaching. And I say, what prevents either of them from being wrong? What guidelines prevent abuse? The Protestant says, "Scripture is the final and infallible authority" on doctrine and morals. It is the only objective standard of truth.
3. Tradition is not a dirty word. Ok, agreed, but it's not infallible either. Tradition can be instructive and helpful, but it is still men doing something because it was done in the past. That doesn’t make it wrong, nor does it make it right. What is used to validate that tradition as “God inspired”? The Protestant says “Scripture.” History tells us that by the 3rd and 4th century people were putting off baptism until their deathbed. That was tradition as well. So, the author's point here is terribly weak.
4. Jesus and Paul accepted oral and written traditions not found in the Bible. Ok, Jesus was the Son of the Living God, the 2nd person in the Trinity, the Word [Scripture] made flesh. Jesus saw all and knew all. Seriously? No one should be claiming equality with Jesus so that they can authoritatively accept some “not found in the Bible” oral teaching or tradition. No mere mortal should ever be so presumptuous, popes included. And now we're back to comparing ourselves to Paul. People that believe in modern day apostles do this all the time. These men actually walked and talked with Jesus. Their knowledge is so far superior to ours that no one who has lived on this earth since them can rightfully compare themselves to these men. This whole point is just silly and nonsensical.
5. Apostles exercised authority at the council of Jerusalem. You mean the church at Jerusalem, right? Ok, so? They were “being” the church. They were also Apostles and there has never been anyone like them since. Besides, that was their job. This doesn't prove the point that Peter, James or Paul were creating tradition. They were exercising apostolic and elder/bishop oversight. As I remember, it was about the Gentiles coming into the church, not just the Jews, which was the reason Jesus met Paul on the road to Damascus.
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extra Biblical Tradition. This is just an oddball argument, and quite frankly, I can quote some early church fathers to prove the last sentence wrong. I’ll provide those in a linked article, as well as below in my reply to point 8. (Mat 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8, 9, 13; Col 2:8)
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura. What was the starting point for the Jews - the reading of the Law - i.e. Scripture - to the people (Duet 31:9-13; Neh 8:5). The Jews so revered “the Law” that they built an entire set of rules around “the Law” to make sure they would never violate “the Law”, even though that is all they ever did, violate “the Law”. So, the Jews absolutely believed in the OT Law, the OT Scriptures, which is what Jesus referred to (Mark 10:12; 15:28; Luke 4:21; John 2:22; 7:38; 7:42; 10:35; 17:12), they just could not follow it even though they tried. And that of course, is explained in the NT by Jesus and Paul.
8. Ephesians 4 refutes the Protestant “proof text, 2 Tim 3:16-17”. Please show me in Scripture where Jesus or the Apostles promoted tradition and church teachings as a co-equal in authority to Scripture? Mat 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8, 9, 13; Col 2:8 all say the exact opposite. Please show me in the early church writings that tradition and church teaching were co-equal to Scripture? Please see Sola Scriptura Part 1 and Sola Scriptura | Evidence Unseen for some quotes from the church fathers that say just to believe Scripture was superior to any other source, in determining doctrine. These fathers explicitly rejected tradition and church teaching that contradicted Scripture. And that IS THE POINT of Sola Scriptura. Tradition and church teaching can be helpful, but if they contradict Scripture, that teaching, that tradition is to be rejected. Period. 
9. Paul casually assumes that his passed-down tradition is infallible and binding. That statement is comical after the above quotes. Second Thessalonians is … “Scripture”, not tradition and his oral teachings for 2:15 were about the 2nd coming. It was not referring to all oral teachings for all time after the Apostles. 
10. Sola Scriptura is a circular position. No, no, no. Scripture is plain about all major doctrines. Like, salvation is by faith and not by works, and only Jesus died for your sins and rose from the grave to give us new life. Are there things that are hard to understand - yes. But the doctrines Christians are supposed to believe, those essential beliefs, are very plain in Scripture; we just don’t want to believe them, or we want to improve them. We want something else, something that we have to do, so we feel better about receiving the free gift of salvation. There is nothing circular about that. 

Here are a few more points from Sola Scriptura | Evidence Unseen.

1. The Bible teaches not to add or take away from Scripture. Paul writes that we should not “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). John writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19). Likewise, Moses writes, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32). If another authority could either add or take away from Scripture, then this would invalidate these passages of Scripture.
2. Scripture is the litmus test for discerning truth. Every time Jesus needs to answer a doctrinal question, he cites Scripture—not tradition. The phrase “It is written…” occurs some 90 times in the NT. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:29). He also rebuked the Jewish leaders for what was “said” (Mt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) versus what was “written” (Mt. 4:4, 7, 10). Moreover, we have nothing in the Bible to suggest that we need something in addition to Scripture.
3. The Bible does not allow for tradition to be equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mt. 15:3, 6). Here Jesus judges their accepted human tradition by the superior authority of Scripture. Likewise, Paul writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8). As we noted above, this does not mean that all tradition is ungodly, anymore than all philosophy is ungodly. However, this does teach that human tradition is not equal or more authoritative than Scripture. If tradition ever disagrees with Scripture, then this tradition is always wrong. Catholic apologist Jim Blackburn writes, “Jesus rightfully condemned [false tradition], but his condemnation was not meant to be applied to every tradition.”[5] However, we feel that Blackburn has missed the point here. The Pharisees were placing tradition above the Bible, and Jesus was using the Bible as a higher standard for correcting their false view.
4. Luke calls the Bereans “noble-minded” for “examining the Scriptures daily” to see if the gospel was true (Acts 17:11). That is, the Bereans compared the message of the apostles with the Bible itself. If the apostles were the supreme authority, then the Bereans would have been considered unbelieving for trying to interpret the Bible by themselves—apart from the interpretation and instruction of the apostles. But instead, they were encouraged for doing this.
5. Timothy was able to come to faith through the OT Scriptures as a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15). If a little child could come to faith through the OT Scriptures, how much more could a fully grown adult come to faith with the completed canon?
6. Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul writes: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Catholic apologist Tim Staples objects that 2 Timothy 3 “says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.”[6] Of course, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t state that it is the only rule of faith. But it does say that it is a sufficient rule. Paul writes that Scripture makes us “equipped for every good work” (v.17). This is why we would define Scripture as sufficient for faith and morals. If Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals, we shouldn’t look for any other standard.
• Note also that this passage comes in the context of battling false teaching. Paul writes, “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). What is our guard against false teaching? Paul tells us that Scripture is the final authority that equips us for “every good work” (v.17).
7. Tradition is not a reliable way to transmit truth. Catholic apologists often appeal to the Church Fathers to defend doctrines, but we see no reason to believe in the early Church Fathers. In fact, false traditions were even appearing in the first century. Paul writes, “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15). No doubt, some of these men were Paul’s personal disciples in Ephesus, whom he predicted would lose their faith (Acts 20:29-30). John had to correct false teaching in his gospel (Jn. 21:22-23), and Paul had to correct false teaching, too (2 Thess. 2:2). In fact, from one end of the NT to the other, we see contrary false teaching. If they had false traditions in the first century already, wouldn’t we expect more false traditions today? Even though the Church Fathers were closer to the apostolic age, this doesn’t make them more orthodox.
8. Sola Scriptura is not an invention of the Reformation. While we do not ultimately hang our argument on history, it is verifiable that this view has been present throughout the history of the Christian Church. 

[see Sola Scriptura Part 1 for quotes from some of the early church fathers]

There really shouldn’t be any opposition to Sola Scriptura because there has to be an objective standard to judge what man proclaims as “faith and doctrine”, whether that be a cult (i.e., JWs, Mormons, etc) or a church, Protestant or Catholic. It cannot be the subjective and constantly changing viewpoints of man. Making Scripture our final authority is the only way to guard against false gospels and false doctrine. That doesn’t mean we never use the writings of the early church fathers or tradition, but it does mean that we must filter all tradition and early church writings through the lens of Scripture. If they violate Scripture, then they must be rejected. And for the areas where there is no direct scriptural guidance, then we should never make these practices part of our doctrinal essentials.

Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and 

that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures 

all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, 

let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things.

John Chrysostom