Oh... it seems someone responded to this thread in a Zombie thread of mine. I'm sorry I missed the response, Nan, but here is my rebuttal in the appropriate thread.
Nansurium wrote:Hello Again, Distruzio. Its been a long time since I have joined into one of these discussions. I'm rather looking forward to it.
Now you kindly provided some very good reasoning as to why Scripture should not be taken as the final authority in all matters relating to Christian doctrine. I would like to contribute to this discussion by providing what I hope will be an equally well reasoned argument that explains why it makes sense to believe in what you call "Sola Scriptura".
Now you start right off the bat by making a few comments that I find slightly offensive when you said:
Many consider the Protestants mere schismatics - not necessarily heretics. I however, struggle to maintain even this modicum of neutrality on the status of protestantism within Christianity and often give in to the temptation to label Protestants, by and large (with some exceptions of course) to be idolators. More specifically, bibliolators - worshippers of the Bible. They deny the authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit - they deny God and supplant him with themselves.
I'm honored that you felt that the comments I made some months ago to be of such high value as to be worth including as evidence to your point. But really, I think we could do with some clarification regarding this rather sensational notion that we protestants are willing to supplant our deity with the Bible. I think before reaching that radical conclusion, you have to consider why such value is placed on the Bible.
The Bible, as I am sure you are well aware, is believed by protestant Christians to be a divinely inspired message to mankind from God, written by the hands of God's most faithful disciples over the course of millennia, from Moses all the way to the disciples of Christ. The Bible is, without a doubt, the most exceptional collection of literary works ever assembled in human history. But that is not what makes this book so exceptional in the eyes of Protestants. The Bible is exceptional simply because we believe that through its texts, the sole means of connecting with God can be found. Our faith in the Bible is not simply driven by the exceptional status of this book. Everything that makes the Bible so important to protestants comes solely from God. We do not worship the Bible as you cynically suggest. The Bible is merely a tool that is "...profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in Righteousness."
We do not deny God. We simply believe that by following closely with the one religious manuscript that we know is the divinely inspired by God, we can best match and play our part in God's plan of salvation.
That's well and all, that you place such high value on the Bible, but that isn't the problem, necessarily, as I see it. The problem is that you place such a high value on the Bible and you place so low a value on everything else God created as well as the words of Jesus Himself, that you deny the divinity and perfection of Christ as well as the divinity and perfection of the Holy Spirit in doing so. You end up worshiping on the altar of ego-centrism. You replace God the trinity with God the duality - you and God alone via the Bible as your sole authority. This interpretation flies in the face of history, theology, and the words of God Himself.
Was the New Testament completed when Paul wrote this of Timothy? Of course it wasn't. Which in and of itself exempts the Holy Traditions, founded in the New Testament, from the assertion that "scripture alone will suffice." Indeed, the "scripture" Paul is writing about is the Old Testament, the Jewish texts. Further, were Paul writing against tradition, why would he cite non-OT oral tradition in the very same chapter?
Your claim that II Timothy 3:15-17 is simply debunked or does not apply because the scriptures were not yet completed and compiled does not hold much weight. Nor do your later assertions where you basically say that the value of the scriptures is diminished because they were not relied upon by the first Christians. This is true. The early church did not have the advantage of having the completed works of Christ's apostles and disciples in hand. But that does not mean that they were devoid of guidance from God. The Christians of this period had the advantage of having teachers who carried with them God's message. This is why scriptures were not so necessary during this period. Because the Apostles and the witnesses of Christ were readily available to dispense the teachings of Christ and to deal with any controversies or malpractice that may have arisen among the early churches during this period.
Indeed. Which is precisely what the historical Christian sects believe. The thing that draws Protestantism and sola scriptura into question is that you lot believe that God and Jesus trusted those men to deliver His message faithfully, but that the men the apostles trusted are not to be trusted as well. You essentially call Jesus a liar when he said the Gates of Hell would not stand against the Church that would be built upon Peter and the other apostles by adhering to the belief that the Church, and the men guiding the Church, went to hell in a handbasket. This is heresy according to historical Christianity and the pillar upon which I condemn Protestantism.
In regards to your argument that Paul was speaking of the Old Testament scriptures in II Timothy 3:15-17, I think you should remember that because Paul was divinely inspired by God to write these things down, and because God is omniscient and omnipotent, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Paul was not only speaking to the Christians of his lifetime. I believe that because the intricacies of our faith had been revealed to Paul by an all-knowing God, then there is a distinct possibility that God was speaking to all generations of Christians to come, Christians who would have all of the scriptures available to them, through Paul as well. Claiming otherwise would be paramount to stating that the Bible is not divinely inspired.
Quite true. I agree. However, I don't think that God would have inspired those words from Paul to be interpreted without
context, which is what we are to recall repeatedly concerning Jesus' words.
In Conclusion, the sole reason I do not adhere to the practices provided for by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is simply because I have seen no convincing evidence that these practices are authorized by divinely inspired works of God. I have seen no evidence that the leadership of either Church speaks with the authority of God.
You do not see them b/c you believe God to be a liar.
Now I would like to finish by questioning your motivations for being so adamant about this topic in the first place. I would contend that somewhere in your consciousness, you are aware of the fact that areas of your worship are not consistent with the Bible and, for that reason, you're trying to discredit the Bible so as to provide more justification for your denomination. Doing so weakens our religion as a whole.
Quite the contrary, actually. I'm specifically calling into question the idea that Protestantism could even be considered Christianity at all.