Just read a very silly article written by a Roman Catholic which was meant to debunk Sola Scriptura. But the misunderstanding of the author as to what Sola Scriptura is prohibited him from actually being able to argue against the doctrine at all. His understanding was that everything must be written in Scripture in order for a Christian to believe it. This is obviously nonsense and not at all what Sola Scriptura is. Very simply stated, Sola Scriptura is the doctrine which states that Scripture Alone is the ultimate rule of faith for the doctrine and conduct of believers. Sola Scriptura speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture to explain what must be done to receive eternal life--in other words, Scripture contains all that is necessary to enter into salvation. When will Roman Catholics learn to stop caricaturizing the doctrine and argue against it based on its own merits?
And if you read the article I linked to then I'd also like to note the logical leaps the author takes in assuming that if something is transmitted orally that it is not 'Scripture' and therefore must be 'Tradition' -- such is not the case at all. Scripture while being written down was God-Breathed before it ever touched paper (or papyri/vellum). Belief in 'verbal inspiration' is a belief in the God-Breathed nature of the words themselves, not the physical form they took. The argument that there was 'no Scripture' before the canon was established or before it was relegated to a material form fails to take into account what the Word of God actually is.
And just one last comment (as I'd like to make many more but I'm tired and don't have the energy to stay up and compose a lengthy post)--the author made an assertion saying:
There are several events in the New Testament which cannot be traced to the Old Testament and so must have been handed down by TRADITION. Some examples are: Mt 2:23 - Nazarene, 2Tim 3:8 - Jamnes and Jambres, Jude 9 - St.Michael disputing with the devil about the body of Moses.
But this argument only exposes thr author's ignorance of what underlies these examples. Matthew 2:23 is Matthew's Midrashic interpretation of a variety of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. I'd recommend Dr. Michael Brown's Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 4: New Testament Objections for a fuller treatment of this. 2Timothy 3:8 actually has reference to the Exodus 7 from the Aramaic Targum Jonathan which names Janis and Jamberes. And as many early Church fathers noted, Jude 9 is a reference to the Assumption of Moses. Now if 'Tradition' demands that no text be the basis for certain beliefs, then the author's argument fails.
But again, Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine that says tradition has no place--it's a doctrine that says tradition is not the authority! When will they learn?
