Sola Scriptura Does Not Suffice

I acknowledge beforehand both sides of this issue profess and argue what they truly believe to be correct. No one can be expected to do more. No intentional fault ought to be found with belief in the Pro or the Con position. I will open with the reassertion that Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) is insufficient. I also quote from the Christian Research Institute, giving the Protestant understanding of the concept, in order to show it is not defined prejudicially using Pro"s point of view: "PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING OF SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura"A Definition By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says. Sola Scriptura"The Sufficiency of Scripture Second, the Bible is sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants "the Bible alone" means "the Bible only" is the final authority for our faith. Sola Scriptura"The Authority of Scripture Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible. Sola Scriptura"The Clarity of Scripture Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean " as Catholics often assume " that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance. Solo Scriptura"The Interpretiveness of Scripture Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones. " . http://www.equip.org... On many of the items within these principles both sides can agree. However for sola Scriptura to be sufficient, it must fulfill all of these articles completely. Pro finds no argument against the definition given. From there we move on to the arguments against sola Scriptura: A. ) The sufficiency of Scripture. The claim the Bible alone is necessary for faith and practice is refuted. Even Scripture itself does not make this assertion, as is clear from the following texts: 1. ) "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. " (Luke 10:16); 2. ) "Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. " (Matthew 16: 15-19); 3. ) "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. " (John 20:30). From these it is clear Christ intended to establish a teaching authority among men to continue to guide mankind beyond the events of the Scriptures. B. ) The authority of Scripture. At first glance this would appear to be unassailable by anyone who believes it to be inspired writing. The Scriptures are in fact unassailable as far as they go. However as it is not the entire and complete fulfillment of Christ"s Church, although the unfailing foundation of it as shown in A) above (by the Scripture"s own admittance), it stands to reason it cannot be the arbiter of those things which are not contained within it. C. ) The clarity of Scripture. If by clarity is meant it has a single meaning, there can be no doubt. God is not against Himself. If by clarity is meant the inspired writings of Scripture can be understood by an individual reader, this cannot be admitted as true. The article above points to the former; but were that such a simple solution, there would be unity among those who believe in the principle of sola Scriptura. D. ) The interpretiveness of Scripture. This is refuted as any such instance where a text is unclear or ambiguous to our understanding must then have another text which clarifies it. This ,without the teaching authority spelled out within Scripture itself, is fraught with the possible danger of several different opinions as to the meaning of the compilation of texts relied on to reach the interpretation. When Scripture is followed as to the teaching authority placed by Christ in His Apostles and the Church, there is a single authority to render a decision on these interpretations and, as a result of following His wishes as expressed within Scripture, and contrary to sola Scriptura, we find the harmony which He would have intended among His believers. It is then shown that sola Scriptura is insufficient on grounds of sufficiency, authority, clarity, and interpretiveness.