Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Refuting Practical Objections To Sola Scriptura

  • High Illiteracy Rates In The Early Church:
          -Being illiterate does not mean that a person is dumb or has less of an ability to understand concepts. Sola Scriptura was still possible for the early Christians because:
            *Scripture can be taught orally by those who are literate.
            *Scripture can still be memorized or recited from memory.
            *Scripture can still be studied, though it may take more time to grasp the meaning behind certain passages of Scripture.
            *The Scriptures were read in the Synagogues and churches. In fact, the heretics of the early church would use Scripture to engage Christians.
          -The ruthless persecution of Christians is problematic for the spread of the gospel, but that does not in any way suggest that hearing and accepting the preached message is of less importance.
          -If the Lord Jesus Christ passed on infallible, extra-biblical oral traditions that were meant to be heard by the layman, then what about the people who are deaf? If illiteracy rates disqualify Scripture from functioning as the only infallible rule of faith, then the Roman Catholic "three-legged stool" must also be disqualified because deaf people cannot hear oral teaching.
  • Concerning Malnutrition In The Early Church:
          -Everybody most probably had the same fundamental diet.
          -It takes no more nourishment to understand teachings found in a catechism than it does to understand the Bible.
          -If we do not have the right to make private interpretations of Scripture, then how can we know with certainty which doctrine is correct amongst the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the Watchtower Society, since all three teach that making interpretations of Scripture is reserved exclusively for the organization? 
  • The Invention Of The Gutenberg Printing Press In 1436:
          -The underlying problem with the "practical arguments" against Sola Scriptura is that they misrepresent the doctrine. All it means is that Scripture alone is the ultimate standard of authority in spiritual matters. These points are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not Sola Scriptura is biblical. They have nothing to do with the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura, or any article of the Christian faith. The authority of Scripture is not determined by our intelligence. The authority of Scripture is not determined by our health. The authority of Scripture is not determined by its availability. Scripture is inherently authoritative because it is God-breathed. It looks as though Roman Catholic apologists have raised a bunch of red herrings so as to make their critics appear laughable.


This post first appeared on Rational Christian Discernment, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Refuting Practical Objections To Sola Scriptura

×

Subscribe to Rational Christian Discernment

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×