Sola Scriptura is Sound

Sola Scriptura, as I mentioned up above, does not exclude the idea of tradition as merely false. The doctrine of sola Scriptura does not mean that we don’t have any other authorities or even sources of revelation, but that the Scripture alone is the final and only infallible source—it is the ultimate source. So any tradition must be authorized by scripture first. Rebuttal to Paragraph 1: Actually Sola Scriptura, as I mentioned up above, does not exclude the idea of oral traditions. Sola Scriptura is saying that the scriptures are the final matters on theological and doctorate type issues. Con asserts that quoting from the Old Testament, for the New Testament in order to be written is “adding to scripture”. However this is not what John meant in Revelations 21:18-19. What John believed was that nothing more should be added to the inspiration of Scripture. The Book of Revelations was the final eschatological conclusion of everything that God had revealed. So, it is safe to say that John was concluding what God had revealed from Genesis, all the way down to John’s book of Revelations. [1][5]Rebuttal to Paragraph 2: Con assumes that I believe the Canon of Scripture is closed. However, I did not necessarily say that it’s directly closed. There could be other scriptures out there that we don’t know about. I believe it’s closed in the sense that, God has revealed everything to man-kind, from Genesis to Revelation. So we no longer need any new revelations from this time period. That’s not to say that there aren’t prophets today who speak. All I am saying is that the purpose of scripture was to give us a full revelation, so I don’t see what else we would need today. God’s word addresses science and morality, so I don’t see the issue here. In fact Genesis 3:5 says that when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they knew good and evil “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So the Bible is really saying is that God has placed inside our hearts, a moral law by which we must live. However, I don’t see how this is relevant to our debate topic, but I didn’t mind addressing it anyway. First off, Con jumps to many conclusions that I haven’t addressed in my opening argument. Yes, there were many scriptures that were circulating around that time. Con mentions the gnostic gospels which are obviously forged and written way after the apostles were alive. The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. God was the ultimate authority in determining the scriptures. [1]Rebuttal to Paragraph 3: Yes, many Christians did not live with the entire “canon” just yet. Con also says that many Greeks and Romans(Gentiles) could not read scripture. I agree, that is why they had educated leaders and bishops to help read the scriptures for the church. However, I don’t see how this would “refute” Sola scriptura. Just because a bishop or church leader helped the earliest Christians read scriptures, doesn’t mean that we can therefore conclude they were the source of authority for doctrine and theological issues. I mean of course, only the wealthy who were well educated could read the scriptures. That is why the church used them to help read God’s word. Con says that most early Christian converts did not have the knowledge of scripture. I would beg to differ. Yes, it is true that they may not have had “all” the New Testament, but they had enough of the Old Testament, as well as the 4 gospels and Paul’s epistles to get by. Many early Christians were fitting the pieces of the puzzle, I guess you could say. And they were coming to then realize that God wasn’t finished yet through his revelation of scripture. Much of God’s people whether Jew or Gentile, had trusted in the Lord to give them an accurate accounting of his revelation through the apostles, as well as the prophets in the OT. So I don’t see how this is dubious at all to the idea of Sola Scriptura. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. Based on the earliest “canon”, we can conclude that the early Church fathers during A.D. 170 already had the 4 gospels that attributed to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As listed above Hebrews, James, and 3 John were the only ones that were not canonized just yet. [2][4]Rebuttal to Paragraph 4: Con says that the Bible alone does not claim that scripture is sufficient. But, it also does not claim that it is insufficient either. What about 2nd Timothy 3:15-17? “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Why does Paul assert Scripture as a means of “ teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness”? Why didn’t Paul appeal to a Magestrium or Bishop, as the means for these types of things? It had to have been because Paul was appealing to Scripture as the source of Authority on all matters. Again, I referred to the early Church fathers because they based their traditions oral or written on the OT, as well as part of the NT. Con also assumes that Paul appealed to something other than scripture. However, this is false. Where did Paul get his authority from? The Holy Spirit of course, any oral or written tradition that was passed down, was based on Old Testament prophecies or scripture or Christ himself. For example: I will cite 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” Did Paul appeal to a magestrium or bishop as the sole basis for this early creed? No, Paul received this from the apostles, whom they received from Christ because Christ was resurrected from the Dead. And, since Christ is God then he was the authority for this creed because it was a real event. This creed is also based on all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, and Christ fufilling those prophecies (death, burial, and resurrection).So again as we see, almost all the traditions or creeds that were handed and passed down were based on Old Testament Prophecy. I cited the early Church fathers to show that they accepted tradition whether oral or written that were based on Old Testament scriptures, in order to verify it. Happy for the rebuttal that Con is going to give next. Sources: [1]http://www.gotquestions.org... [2]http://www.biblegateway.com... [3]http://www.reclaimingthemind.org... [4]http://www.biblegateway.com... [5]http://biblehub.com...