A recent post from a Twitter or “X” evangelical Christian named Indiana Brunner recently got popular. This individual and I communicated for several months on the subject of Catholicism, however recently he blocked me and has posted some insane anti-catholic positions. I thought I’d shed some light on some of his arguments and explain why they are extremely flawed. To dismantle the root of his interpretations of scripture I thought Id start with the trunk of his argument. The following italicized text is found on his X account. You can search him up to find the following argument he uses to defend his actions.
The Case for Sola Scriptura Using Scripture Alone
“First, let us define Sola Scriptura: Sola Scriptura does not mean scripture is the only authority, but that scripture is the only INFALLIBLE authority. The God-breathed scriptures are good for correction (2 Timothy 3:16) which means that the words of men are capable of error.”
There are several reasons this definition is problematic.
1. Starting with the fact that this entire premise relies on the assumption that the “scripture” referenced in 2 Tim 3:16 is the Bible, specifically only the 66 book canonical Bible.
2. It rests on the assumption that the Bible itself says “The Bible is infallible”.
Also if only the Bible is Infallible, meaning to “teach correctly” or incapable of error, was the church that compiled it infallible as well? If the Bible is infallible why do so many people come to different conclusions with it?
This is riddled with holes and rather than spend time on this I’ll accept the ill-fashioned premise and demonstrate the absurdity of the rest of the argument.
Catholic Concern #1: How could early Christians go by scripture alone if the New Testament hadn’t been written yet?
The Old Testament scriptures were sufficient for the Jews to accept Christ for who he claimed to be and that is made clear by Jesus in John 5:39.
This entire statement rests on the assumption that the Jewish canon at the time of Christ was fixed and settled. I have another post on this subject titled, The Canon Question: Jews During the Time of Christ and Their Diverse Views on Scripture, however just some simple facts to dismantle this claim:
1. The Pharisees accepted a broader collection of texts that would later form the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) with debates continuing well into the 2nd century.
2.) The Sadducees, who were more conservative, accepted only the Torah (the first five books of Moses) as authoritative, rejecting other writings such as the Prophets and Writings.
3.) The Essenes, associated with the “Dead Sea Scrolls” found at Qumran, had a wide variety of texts, including some not found in the later Jewish canon (e.g., 1 Enoch, Jubilees).
4.) Hellenistic Jews or the Jews in the Diaspora, particularly in Alexandria, used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures, which included books later termed “Deuterocanonical” by Christians (e.g., Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).
In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul explicitly tells Christians “not to go beyond what is written (OT), that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”
Again, what Jews is Paul talking to, and can you prove their “written (OT)” matches yours? How would you handle them having less or more scriptures?
Acts 17:11 tells us that the Boreans seemed to have had the same idea considering they were commended as “noble” for “examining the Scriptures (OT) daily to see if” the apostolic witness was true
I mean seriously if partner took 10 seconds to google what a Borean was he’d find that the Boreans lived in a Hellenistic region (Berea, modern-day Greece), where Greek was the predominant language. The Septuagint was the main Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, making it accessible to Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles. The Septuagint contained the Apocrypha/ Detuercanonicals… so does this confirm their divine inspiration or your ignorance?
Catholic Concern #2: Paul tells Christians to follow oral traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
— Paul tells Christians to follow the traditions “taught by us.” Key word “us” makes it abundantly clear that Christians are to listen to the words of the apostles. Unfortunately, we no longer have any living apostles; therefore, their words only remain for us in their writings.
I agree with this however, this implies that the apostles must have preferred or limited their teachings to exclusively writings… this is extremely unlikely due to the simple logistics of writing on papyrus and the literacy rate of the time. This is such a shallow argument I don’t think it’s necessary to critique. This is a weak hill to stand on.
— Paul ALSO warns that “after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts
20:29-30) This is an explicit warning that when the apostles “depart,” the church will become vulnerable to “twisted” oral tradition.
I have no issue with this, I’m assuming this is referencing that Roman Catholicism is the one perverting scripture but yeah again shallow argument not worth going over.
Catholic Concern #3: Aren’t you limiting God’s power by saying that he is unable to preserve oral tradition?
God is able to preserve oral tradition, but how are we to determine what is God’s oral tradition and what is man’s oral tradition? We must measure those traditions against what we know for sure to be the words of God & SCRIPTURE
Jesus made it very clear that the word of God was greater than oral tradition when speaking to the Pharisees (Mark 7:9-13) despite the fact that the Pharisees had legitimate teaching authority (Matthew 23:2-3), and those same Pharisees claimed to posses an oral law from Moses.
This might be the best argument in this post… however still extremely flawed.
1. If we can’t discern what God’s oral teachings were why do you think could discern his written teachings were? The Bible was assembled by men attempting to identify apostolic writings.
The argument that Jesus prioritized Scripture over oral tradition in Mark 7:9-13 does not disprove the value of legitimate tradition. In this passage, Jesus critiques the Pharisees for elevating human traditions above God’s commandments, specifically referring to corban, a misuse of tradition that violated the spirit of God’s law. However, Jesus doesn’t condemn all tradition. In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 urges believers to “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions” taught by word or letter, affirming the role of both Scripture and apostolic tradition. Moreover, while the Pharisees held teaching authority (Matthew 23:2-3), their traditions lacked the divine protection Jesus promised to His Church. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to guide His apostles and their successors to protect the “deposit of faith” only in the New Testament (John 14:26, John 16:13), ensuring the truth would be preserved in both Scripture and tradition within the Church (1 Timothy 3:15).
Catholic Concern #4: How can you be sure that your interpretation of the New Covenant is correct?
I don’t need to interpret the New Covenant because the apostles already did! The New Testament Scriptures are 2 things: The perfect testimony of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection (John 14:26) and The divine INTERPRETATION of the New Covenant as laid out by the Old Testament (Luke 24:45)
I don’t understand this one… I’m assuming this is an attempt to justify why his position is correct. Seems pretty shallow but I don’t have enough information to critique this one.
Catholic Concern #5: Is scripture alone sufficient for Christians?
John makes it abundantly clear that “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31)
Here, John tells us that the written testimony of Jesus’ life ALONE is sufficient to be born again in Jesus’ name.
Nothing here says scripture alone is sufficient… nor does it even say all you need is what is written. This is a weak argument and it’s a stretch to point toward the gospel of John when John himself says in the very last verse of his gospel “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25). John clearly states there’s much more to the teachings of Christ than what is written.
Final thoughts:
“Then turning to the disciples he said privately,
‘Blessed are the eyes that see what you see!'”
(Luke 10:23)
— Jesus does NOT say “blessed are the eyes that blindly follow what men claim to be true.” No! He says blessed are those who SEE! Many people will read the scriptures and not see. I’m not denying that. Seeing eyes are only granted by God himself (Matthew 13:11).
Paul tells Christians “I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.” (1
Corinthians 10:15)
To highlight past claims, Paul here again is saying to judge what I say not what I’m writing down…
— Jesus promises true Christians the ability to hear his word and come to the truth (John 10:27)
2 Timothy 2:15:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
If my reading of the scripture is incorrect, then I will be judged accordingly. If Rome’s reading of the scripture is incorrect and if their traditions are from man, then billions of people will be judged for following the words of man rather than the words of God. Either way, God will be glorified in the judgment of those who deny the words of the Creator in favor of those from the creature.
This is riddled with holes I’m sure I don’t need to point out the further absurdity of these claims… this gentleman fits the criteria of “Invincible Ignorance ” quite fittingly.
