Sola Scriptura non in Scriptura

Q

As a Catholic, how do you argue with Protestants against the Sola Scriptura principle?
https://www.quora.com/As-a-Catholic-how-do-you-argue-with-Protestants-against-the-Sola-Scriptura-principle/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

I mean, how do you actually carry out the dialogue with them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Sep 6

• 1) I start pointing out that Sola Scriptura is anti-Biblical;
• 2) I see how they react and carry on (or not) according to their way of taking it, often a protracted debate - or a non-response cutting off carrying on (as it is often over internet, a non-response is easy for them).

Jean Dieudonné

Sep 6

“I start pointing out that Sola Scriptura is anti-Biblical”

Okay, how is that anti-Biblical?

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sep 6

It excludes oral tradition, contrary to this Bible word:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

It excludes infallible magisterium, contrary to this one:

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

Against two proof texts = anti-Biblical.

Jean Dieudonné

Sep 7

“by word, or by our epistle”

Yes, by the word of the apostles who Jesus chose himself. Not by all the successors or followers of the apostles. Otherwise I ask you, why are there no further additional books to the New Testament from, say, the first pope? Or all of the popes? Why is this so strongly distinguished from all the successors of the apostles?

About 1. Thimothy 3:15:

Where do I get the rules for “how I ought to behave in the house of God”? I say I get them from the Bible. And so do all the other people. And if someone comes to me and tells me “God told me this and that” I would immediately look into the Bible and search for the passages that fit the description of this person.

So far I would say that your argumentation is flawed here. But I am looking forward reading a reply from you :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sep 7

"Yes, by the word of the apostles who Jesus chose himself. Not by all the successors or followers of the apostles."

This is in contradiction against:

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Matthew 28.

Here, what Christ tells the apostles applies to all of their successors. All the original ones are dead, unless St John was taken alive up to Heaven. The promise in verse 20 was not directed to all the faithful in common, see verse 16. Therefore the Apostles do have successors. Again, they were eleven at the occasion, because Judas the traitor was missing. He got a successor, though, see Acts 1.

Again, St Paul was not of the original 12, nor this chosen replacement of Judas. He was an added apostle, and for purposes of apostolic activity he received cheirotonia along with Barnabas:

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.
Acts 13

Therefore, by cheirotonia, laying on of hands, a man can become an apostle, like the original twelve.

This along with the promise of being with apostles to the end of all time means that, yes, promises to the apostles in common apply to their successors up to our time.

"Otherwise I ask you, why are there no further additional books to the New Testament from, say, the first pope?"

Only the apostles and Luke and Mark are hagiographers in NT. The first Pope wrote two books, I and II Peter.

He is behind the Gospel of St Mark, and he sent St Mark to be first bishop or patriarch of Alexandria.

He is called Saint Peter. He was the chief of the apostles.

Their successors are however not receiving NEW revelation, they are however, like Timothy and Titus succeeding St Paul's work, habilitated to not just read aloud from epistles of St Paul but recall ALL that St Paul told them orally.

"Why is this so strongly distinguished from all the successors of the apostles?"

Why are YOU distinguishing it so strongly, is the question.

Where do YOU find this extreme distinction in the Bible?

"Where do I get the rules for 'how I ought to behave in the house of God'? I say I get them from the Bible."

But St Paul certainly did not say "from Bible alone" to either St Timothy or anyone else.

NOT getting rules from the Bible would be foolish, but since the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not getting rules from the Church would be foolish too.

"And if someone comes to me and tells me “God told me this and that” I would immediately look into the Bible and search for the passages that fit the description of this person."

The rules of the Church are NOT Bible + later private revelation.

They are the Bible, all of the 73 (at least) books + apostolic tradition not written down in Bible.

This latter breaks down into a small and a big category.

The small category is a few things not directly mentioned in the Bible, like replacing Saturday with Sunday, like how exactly to celebrate Holy Mass, like fasting on wednesdays and fridays, like making the sign of the cross.

The big category is being heirs to the 40 days crash course of OT exegetics given by Christ to His Apostles.

Private revelations do exist. We do not judge them just by the Bible, but by ALL of above.