A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[jacobaer]

Hi Sola,

You said: “Jacobaer, I’m not following your argument. Scripture itself says it is God’s word, so that is the authority. Maybe I’m missing your point, but your refutation is not making any sense as I read it.”

Here is your original statement that I am challenging:
“It logically follows that if Scripture is God speaking there is not higher source, right? At best there can be an equal source, but not a higher, right? Therefore, God speaking judges all other things that are not its equal. If you think you have another source that is equal to God’s speaking then the onus is on you to prove this. Otherwise this point stands.”

When you say, “It logically follows…” you are stepping outside the realm of “God speaking” and into the realm of “you interpreting.” You’ve stepped outside Scripture and made an authoritative statement ABOUT Scripture. THEN you appealed to Scripture, specifically, the verse in 2 Timothy 3.

Now, in your response to me, you make the appeal to Scripture first*…”Scripture itself says it is God’s word”*…then you add your extra-Scriptural statement…”so that is the authority.”

Let’s take a closer look at your statement.

“Scripture itself says it is God’s word…” – I can agree with you there. Scripture DOES say that.

“…so that is the authority.” – Now, it DOES NOT say that. YOU are saying that. “God speaking” is most certainly authoritative. But THE authority? YOU are saying that.

So now you are still left standing at the corner of “God speaking” and “you interpreting.”\

Your appeal to Sola Scriptura as a doctrine is based on a Scriptural statement AND your extra-Scriptural statement about its authority. In essence, you’ve added your authoritative statement to Scripture to buttress your argument about Sola Scriptura.

Let me put it another way: You are saying, “Scripture alone is the only authority in spiritual matters because it says so and I say so.”

No matter how you look at it, you’ve put yourself into the equation as an authority. You expect us to believe Sola Scriptura NOT ONLY because Scripture says it is God speaking. You expect us to believe it because YOU SAY that this makes it THE only authority.

Do you see it now?

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[mikeledes]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Sola Scriptura (the doctrine, not the person) argues that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith. All truths binding on believers must be found in the Bible. The problem is that I have not found a satisfactory answer to the following question. Where in the Bible does it say that it is the only infallible and sufficient rule of faith? If this is a truth binding on all believers, then it should be clearly stated in the Bible. The verse from 2 Timothy says the Bible is God breathed and profitable, but profitable does not mean sufficient or exclusive rule of faith.

The Bible is certainly materially sufficient to teach Christians how to behave as Christians (the word “complete” is clarified by the following words “prepared for every good work”), but this does not necessarily apply to doctrines that do not directly deal with Christian conduct. And even when it comes to Christian conduct, the Bible does not give an exhaustive explanation of every sin. For example, where does the Bible talk about the sinfulness of masturbation? For those who say it falls under fornication, what if it is done while the person is thinking of their spouse? Is it acceptable?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[RNRobert]

A couple years ago when I first joined this forum, I started a thread entitled “Why I rejected Sola Scriptura.” On that thread, fellow forum member Bob Catholic posted what he called “His Infamous Four Questions.” Here they are:

BobCatholic:

My “infamous 4 questions” are as follows:

Using Scripture alone, please tell me:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.

According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions

 

[SolaScriptura]

Before we discuss this, I’d like you to respond to both of my posts, rather than just this later one. I believe that I raised some issues in my first post that ought to be addressed before we move on.

I will respond to your other post, but lets remember there is one of me and about 5 guys I’m responding to on this thread and also another thread on this board. So if I’m engaged in 4 or 5 conversations don’t expect me to respond to every post every one of you guys can muster up. If I did that I would have no time for anything else.

 

[jemfinch]

I will respond to your other post, but lets remember there is one of me and about 5 guys I’m responding to on this thread and also another thread on this board. So if I’m engaged in 4 or 5 conversations don’t expect me to respond to every post every one of you guys can muster up. If I did that I would have no time for anything else.

Oh, I completely understand. I’ve been in threads like that myself on occasion I just don’t want the same issue to happen with you as happened with bibleapologist, where only select portions of my posts were responded to; the easiest way to accomplish that is not to continue to post until my posts have gotten a response.

Already, I’m very happy that you seem to be responding to posts in full, rather than only responding to the “easy” parts.

Jeremy

 

[SolaScriptura]

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

You believe it because the church tells you so? But why do you believe the church knows, because it tells you so?

I’ve seen this argument several times (in here, from you and kaycee; in Real Life, from James White and from my dad). It’s like you’re trying to excise faith from the Christian experience. It’s a straw man that Protestants very often trot out against the Church, to emphasize that faith is still involved in the search for truth. But as Catholics, we proudly embrace the fact that faith cannot be removed from the search for truth, for without faith it is impossible to please God!

What we’re saying, however, is that our faith in the Church is an eminently more reasonable faith than your faith in Sola Scriptura. We’re saying that more evidence (biblical, historical, and logical) supports our faith in the Church than supports your faith in your own tradition of Sola Scriptura.

Well, that maybe what you are saying but it is not what the majority of Catholics I come across are saying. This line of questioning was directed at me first, and I just flipped the switch and turned it around. So save me the revisionist interpretation of what is going on in the minds of others that asked the question. Furthermore, it is clear that your interpretation is wrong, because we were discussing the canon and you are discussing Sola Scriptura. They are two different things, though closely related.
This leads me to the next point. It seems like you are getting off to a rocky start, because you are making a category error in your comparisons. If you are going to compare my belief in Sola Scriptura to something, it must be the equivalent something from your side. So the comparison should be between my rule of faith(i.e.Sola Scriptura) and your rule of faith(i.e. church, scripture, and tradition ). Now that we have that straight make an argument for how much more reasonable is your belief in your rule of faith than mines.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

How do you know you have the right church?

Fundamentally, the same way that you “know” you have the right Bible: by faith supported by reason. But our knowledge that we have the right Church is, again, eminently more reasonable than your faith that you have the right Bible and the right interpretation thereof. Any number of reasons can be presented in defense of this claim, should you decide to investigate it.

You are talking a strong game, but so far you haven’t put much up and how do you know I haven’t investigate it?

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

Because it tells you so? If you rely on your own authority to come to this decision then you are in the same boat as I

In the end, we have to rely upon the resources God has given us, both external and internal. We’re not arguing a logical issue here: we’re arguing an epistemological issue. We’re not arguing merely whether your claims are logically coherent or whether your interpretation of the Bible is internally consistent, but whether they’re the ones most supported by the evidence (historical, biblical, and logical) that we have.

Still waiting for an argument.

continued with next post …

 

[SolaScriptura]

… continued from previous post

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

I believe it based on a number of reasons such as:

• Based on internal witness

As mentioned before, many other works claim to be inspired by God, but you reject those.

Yes, just like a number of churches claim they are the true church, but you reject those.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

• Based on external witness
• Based on history( and yes, I even take the church fathers testimony into account )

The only external witness worth believing is one that actually has an external definition of truth and of the faith by which to discern between inspired books and uninspired books. If an external witness has no yardstick by which to determine whether a work is inspired, how can it be trusted?

An external source can bring much important information to the table, because they are reporting on historical events. For example, and external source corroborate that much of the historical information that is in the Scriptures. They could corroborate that the individuals mentioned actual live during that time. They could corroborate that Jesus was crucified and his body turned up missing and the tomb is empty. Likewise external sources could demonstrate claims are wrong and disqualify a source from being considered inspired.

jemfinch:

The only reason a Protestant should take into account the testimony of the Church Fathers when discerning what works are Scripture and what aren’t is that he implicitly accepts the claim of the Catholic Church that there does exist a Tradition which is not recorded in Scripture, against which written works may be compared and either accepted or rejected as inspired Scripture as is appropriate to their consistency with that Tradition.

Only the most naïve Protestant would deny there is a tradition. So I don’t implicitly accept the claim of the Catholic Church, but I explicitly accept the historical record! Reformational Protestants have never had a problem with tradition, we only have a problem with putting that tradition on the same par as infallible Scripture.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

• Based on the fact of Jesus Christ resurrection, which vindicated everything he said and it logically follows if he was God He would preserve His revelation.

It doesn’t “logically” follow, it “reasonably” follows, but that’s neither here nor there. What’s important is that it also follows in exactly the same way that God would preserve His Church as the bearer and proclaimer of His revelation, as the pillar and foundation of the truth, and as the City on a Hill that cannot be hidden.

Well, if it was illogical it wouldn’t be reasonable, but that is neither here nor there either. I don’t deny God preserve His church, just like He preserves the OT church. However, He didn’t need to grant the OT church infallibility to preserve so neither does he need to grant infallibility to the Christian church to preserve it.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

• The work of the Holy Spirit in my heart

I can just as easily claim that the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart is what led me to the Catholic Church and away from the false teaching of Sola Scriptura.

Yes you can. I was giving my reasons for believing in the canon. I was not listing them as if you could use the same argument. Furthermore, you are still talking about sola Scriptura whereas this post was dealing with the canon.

jemfinch:

One of us is wrong, so your assuredness that it is the Holy Spirit that keeps you believing in Sola Scriptura is almost certainly misplaced.

What Christian doesn’t believe it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding them? To deny that is to essentially deny you are Christian. So it is definitely not misplaced, that is where my assurance should be placed, that is in God.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

Well, why can’t I do the same thing for determining the canon?

Because to determine the Canon by any means other than special revelation by the Holy Spirit, you need already to know the Gospel and the content of the deposit of faith in order to discern between inspired and uninspired books. Without that pre-existing knowledge, you cannot reasonably assert that any written work is Scripture.

Baloney. All you need to know is who the authors of the works are and if they are inspired or the inspired authors could tell you what is inspired, so the one compiling the canon does not necessarily need direct special revelation to do so. As a matter of fact the Jews during Jesus knew what the Scriptures were without their institution being infallible.

 

[SolaScriptura]

A couple years ago when I first joined this forum, I started a thread entitled “Why I rejected Sola Scriptura.” On that thread, fellow forum member Bob Catholic posted what he called “His Infamous Four Questions.” Here they are:

BobCatholic:

My “infamous 4 questions” are as follows:

Using Scripture alone, please tell me:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.

According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions

Since you seem to be impressed by these questions and the response is pretty simple I thought I would respond. The numbered answers corresponds to the infamous questions.

1. 
   *]Not necessary for Sola Scriptura to be true. Sola Scriptura presupposes you have Scripture. This question is more of an issue with recognizing the canon.
   *]Same as above.
   *]Same as above.
   *]Same as above.
   
   These are all basically the same question, with a little twist.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Sola Scriptura (the doctrine, not the person) argues that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith.

You are correct.

All truths binding on believers must be found in the Bible. The problem is that I have not found a satisfactory answer to the following question. Where in the Bible does it say that it is the only infallible and sufficient rule of faith? If this is a truth binding on all believers, then it should be clearly stated in the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is a principle that is derived from the Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not mean every belief has to be clearly stated in the Bible, but that it can also be there by good and necessary consequence( exact phrase used by Westminster Confession of Faith )

The verse from 2 Timothy says the Bible is God breathed and profitable, but profitable does not mean sufficient or exclusive rule of faith.

Well, the text says more than that. In verse 15-17 it says the Holy Scriptures “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus … profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” This teaches us that Scripture is sufficient to teach you about salvation through faith in Christ. It is sufficient to teach the man of God for every good work

The Bible is certainly materially sufficient to teach Christians how to behave as Christians (the word “complete” is clarified by the following words “prepared for every good work”), but this does not necessarily apply to doctrines that do not directly deal with Christian conduct.

This text does deal with doctrine outside of conduct. How do you think it can make you wise unto salvation in Jesus Christ? That is not conduct. What do you think “profitable for teaching” means and if this a good work then Scripture equips the man you for this.

And even when it comes to Christian conduct, the Bible does not give an exhaustive explanation of every sin. For example, where does the Bible talk about the sinfulness of masturbation? For those who say it falls under fornication, what if it is done while the person is thinking of their spouse? Is it acceptable?

The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean it has to list every possible sin anyone could commit. As a matter of fact your rule of faith does not list every possible sin everyone could commit. Does that mean it is insufficient? Scripture is sufficient to teach us what is required for salvation and to equip the man of God for every good work, which includes teaching, instructions in righteousness, and the other things that were listed.

 

[Atreyu]

But you do agree that all of the Scriptures I contain is the word of God, I just don’t agree that all of yours is, so the point still stands.

Well I still disagree, since I am saying that the issue at hand is why we accept the Bible as the word of God. We thoroughly disagree with why we accept this fact, which is why I think it is an issue.

You believe it because the church tells you so? But why do you believe the church knows, because it tells you so?

No, not quite.

As you told me that is begging the question.

It would be, if that were my reasoning.

How do you know you have the right church? Because it tells you so?

No, not quite.

If you rely on your own authority to come to this decision then you are in the same boat as I

This is how I see it. From historical documents such as the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, and the writings of Augustine of Hippo - in particular, his Confessions which is the only complete work of his that I have read - along with the books that are collectively termed “the Bible” (and there are many more examples of course), then I can reasonably conclude that Jesus Christ was God. I’m pretty sure you agree with me here, and I’m also quite sure that I am yet to use a circular argument. Let me call the books and writings that I have mentioned, “witnesses”. These same witnesses testify that Jesus Christ started a Church, and I can conclude from these same witnesses several qualities of that Church: that it is visible, it is apostolic, it is holy, it is universal and it is one. I can conclude that this Church has continued from the apostles to today and is known as “the Catholic Church”, or sometimes as “the Roman Catholic Church”, though I do not like that name (only for the Latin rite). Also, I can conclude that it has authority on Earth. There is still no circular argument here, but of course I haven’t even bothered trying to demonstrate the conclusions I have made from the witnesses - these are topics for other threads.

So now, once I have concluded that this Church - the Catholic Church - has authority on Earth, I can accept the authoritative decisions of that Church. In particular, I can accept that the Church has the authority to define a set of books that are inspired and are the written word of God - the Bible. Whatever you may say about my argument being incomplete (of course it is); I don’t see that it is circular. I think I disagree with what jemfinch (To Kill a Mockingbird, I just got that…) said above.

Well, why can’t I do the same thing for determining the canon? If you don’t need an inspired Bible to trust it account of things why do you think I need an infallible church? Can’t I just take the witness of the church as historically accurate amongst the other things I mentioned above? However, this creates a problem for you, because you claim to need an infallible church unless you cannot be certain. Well, how do you know you have one? Since the bible is only historically accurate it could be wrong on some details and still be considered historically accurate. How do you know your church is infallible, because it says so? It could also be wrong on the canon. The same is true for tradition. Believe me, you are in no stronger position than I with this argument.

No, I first determine that the Church is infallible from witnesses that do not need for the Church to be infallible (nor for the Bible to be inerrant or inspired). Therefore I am in a much stronger position than you, as you have no way - other than faith - in being certain that the Bible is inerrant and inspired.

 

[Bishopite]

[SolaScriptura;1796955]

Jacobaer, I’m not following your argument. Scripture itself says it is God’s word, so that is the authority.

The problem with your argument is you are using circular reasoning, which is a logical and philosophical error. The Koran says it is Gods word too, does that make it so? The book of Mormon says it is Gods word does that make it so also?
You see the problem here? Just because Scripture says it is Gods word (and we all agree it is) doesn’t automatically mean it is just from the text itself.

We know Scripture is Gods word not just because it says so, but because we know…

***Jesus was a true historical person and proved He was God

***Jesus established a Church with His authority as history attests by its defending orthodoxy and preventing heresies to infiltrate its dogmas

***This authoritative Church tells us which books are the infallible word of God and the word of God is passed down by written means and by word of mouth.

This is more of a spiral argument than a circular one; the Church was established before the word of God was inscripturated and Christ works through her to give us truth.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The problem with your argument is you are using circular reasoning, which is a logical and philosophical error. The Koran says it is Gods word too, does that make it so? The book of Mormon says it is Gods word does that make it so also?
You see the problem here? Just because Scripture says it is Gods word (and we all agree it is) doesn’t automatically mean it is just from the text itself.

We know Scripture is Gods word not just because it says so, but because we know…

***Jesus was a true historical person and proved He was God

***Jesus established a Church with His authority as history attests by its defending orthodoxy and preventing heresies to infiltrate its dogmas

***This authoritative Church tells us which books are the infallible word of God and the word of God is passed down by written means and by word of mouth.

This is more of a spiral argument than a circular one; the Church was established before the word of God was inscripturated and Christ works through her to give us truth.

I know there are a lot of posts and it is basically impossible to read them all and neither is it fun. But the substance of your post has already been answered before and I’m not repeating myself. I’m already outnumbered 1 to 100. Sorry.

 

[LaSalle]

Yes, but how do you know who or what the Church is without the Bible? Don’t answer with Tradition, because the next question is how do you know what Tradition is without the Bible? Seems like you have a tight circle yourself. However, if I was discussing this with someone who didn’t believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures I wouldn’t make exactly the same argument. You make arguments based on shared premises by the one whom you are debating.

You do realise that there are other sources that is used, right?

If it is so untenable I don’t understand why so many of you Catholics will not even offer a rationale refutation of it. Most of what I hear is the crackling of straw burning as you all torch the strawman, or just the condescension about how untenable it is without offering an argument to prove what you are asserting. This is getting old and tiring.

Actually, I reached that conclusion after writing this -

"They are all sincere and well meaning … but all seem to reach different doctrines based, oddly enough, on the same bible! How do you explain that? "

You didn’t use it in your reply.

It’s quite simple - SS dictates that no other source has authority, correct? Other sources are helpful in interpreting the bible but no other source has authority, correct?

If SS does work, how do you explain so many contradictory doctrines? Also, with no other authority, how do you know whose interpretation is correct? The Methodists’, Baptists’ or add any denomination here?

They all cannot be correct now can they?

SS is untenable because it doesn’t work as a concept. It fails in precisely what it aims to accomplish.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This is how I see it. From historical documents such as the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, and the writings of Augustine of Hippo - in particular, his Confessions which is the only complete work of his that I have read - along with the books that are collectively termed “the Bible” (and there are many more examples of course), then I can reasonably conclude that Jesus Christ was God. I’m pretty sure you agree with me here, and I’m also quite sure that I am yet to use a circular argument. Let me call the books and writings that I have mentioned, “witnesses”. These same witnesses testify that Jesus Christ started a Church, and I can conclude from these same witnesses several qualities of that Church: that it is visible, it is apostolic, it is holy, it is universal and it is one. I can conclude that this Church has continued from the apostles to today and is known as “the Catholic Church”, or sometimes as “the Roman Catholic Church”, though I do not like that name (only for the Latin rite). Also, I can conclude that it has authority on Earth. There is still no circular argument here, but of course I haven’t even bothered trying to demonstrate the conclusions I have made from the witnesses - these are topics for other threads.

And after this long complicated chain of evaluating complicated historical documents that are multifaceted, and you still haven’t read them all. As a matter of fact you have probably read less than 1% of them. You do all of this via private judgment and you think you are in a superior position to Protestants in reference to your assurance of the canon? This is pretty remarkable if you ask me. I could critique each one of your arguments in the chain. For example, Augustine is clear that he doesn’t believe in an infallible Bishop(i.e. Pope ) or infallible councils. He only believes God is infallible and His inspired word. So it is obvious you didn’t read carefully. But there is no need to critique each of your points, because the cumulative effect of your private reasoning and yourself as an authority to make all these decisions should be enough to give you a pause before chiding Protestants.

So now, once I have concluded that this Church - the Catholic Church - has authority on Earth, I can accept the authoritative decisions of that Church. In particular, I can accept that the Church has the authority to define a set of books that are inspired and are the written word of God - the Bible. Whatever you may say about my argument being incomplete (of course it is); I don’t see that it is circular. I think I disagree with what jemfinch (To Kill a Mockingbird, I just got that…) said above.

No, it is not circular, but it shouldn’t bring you any assurance, unless you think much to highly of your own private judgment and authority.

No, I first determine that the Church is infallible from witnesses that do not need for the Church to be infallible (nor for the Bible to be inerrant or inspired). Therefore I am in a much stronger position than you, as you have no way - other than faith - in being certain that the Bible is inerrant and inspired.

Baloney. If you read my post above to jemfinch or some other person you would know this is a caricature of my position.

 

[SolaScriptura]

It’s quite simple - SS dictates that no other source has authority, correct? Other sources are helpful in interpreting the bible but no other source has authority, correct?

Hi LaSalle,

If you don’t know the correct answer to this hen you need to take some time and catch up on the arguments for sola Scriptura. I’ve answered this so many times on different threads that I’m ready to give up. You guys talk about Protestants misrepresenting the Catholic position, but there have been very if any on this board that I have seen who don’t misrepresent the Protestant position. Now there are few that at least ask sensible questions which demonstrate they have a good understanding of the issues. However, for most of you it is just parroting the same tired misrepresentation that are all over the internet.

Now think about it for a second. The Scriptures themselves teaches that there are other authorities. They teach parents, governments, and leaders(i.e. Elders) in the church are authorities. So isn’t it the most basic error to therefore say sola Scriptura means there are no other authorities???

If SS does work, how do you explain so many contradictory doctrines? Also, with no other authority, how do you know whose interpretation is correct? The Methodists’, Baptists’ or add any denomination here?

A principle itself cannot guarantee any results unless it is used correctly. For example, if your church’s system is the Apostolic system then all of the denominations and heretics eventually go back to your system. Remember, there were many heretics and splits before the Reformation. So does your system work?

They all cannot be correct now can they?

SS is untenable because it doesn’t work as a concept. It fails in precisely what it aims to accomplish.

It doesn’t seem like the 3 equal infallible sources have worked that well. Even today Catholicism is full of contradictory beliefs. There are Traditionalists, Modernists, Feenyites, Old Catholic Church, charismatic Catholics, different views on evolution and creation, material sufficiency of Scripture and those who deny it, different views on the inerrancy of Scriptures, different views on when Pope’s have spoken infallible, different views on what Trent teaches, different views on if Vatican II is infallible, different views on predestination, different views on who can be saved outside the church, and the list goes on and on and on. The only difference is that you jam all these different beliefs under one roof say, “Ta da, Unity!!” Yeah, right

 

[LaSalle]

Hi SS

If you don’t know the correct answer to this hen you need to take some time and catch up on the arguments for sola Scriptura. I’ve answered this so many times on different threads that I’m ready to give up. You guys talk about Protestants misrepresenting the Catholic position, but there have been very if any on this board that I have seen who don’t misrepresent the Protestant position. Now there are few that at least ask sensible questions which demonstrate they have a good understanding of the issues. However, for most of you it is just parroting the same tired misrepresentation that are all over the internet.

Now think about it for a second. The Scriptures themselves teaches that there are other authorities. They teach parents, governments, and leaders(i.e. Elders) in the church are authorities. So isn’t it the most basic error to therefore say sola Scriptura means there are no other authorities???

Well, here’s the problem … depending on which protestant I speak with, the definition changes … I believe even James White states that there are no other authoritative sources other than the bible.

Teachers, pastors, compendiums etc are helpful (as I mentioned in my post) but not authoritative.

Now, we can’t keep moving the goal posts, can we?

A principle itself cannot guarantee any results unless it is used correctly.

AMEN! … problem is - they (Methodists, Baptists, add any other denomination here) all believe that they are using it correctly!

Who decides who is using SS correctly?

For example, if your church’s system is the Apostolic system then all of the denominations and heretics eventually go back to your system. Remember, there were many heretics and splits before the Reformation. So does your system work?

Those who leave, leave. God gave free will, whether they come back depends on them accepting the authority of the church again … what has that to do with the ‘Apostolic system’ again?

It doesn’t seem like the 3 equal infallible sources have worked that well. Even today Catholicism is full of contradictory beliefs. There are Traditionalists, Modernists, Feenyites, Old Catholic Church, charismatic Catholics, different views on evolution and creation, material sufficiency of Scripture and those who deny it, different views on the inerrancy of Scriptures, different views on when Pope’s have spoken infallible, different views on what Trent teaches, different views on if Vatican II is infallible, different views on predestination, different views on who can be saved outside the church, and the list goes on and on and on. The only difference is that you jam all these different beliefs under one roof say, “Ta da, Unity!!” Yeah, right

There will always be discension, whoever does not subject themselves to the Pope is not catholic. It’s quite simple.

 

[jacobaer]

Hey Sola,

Did you forget about me? I just went through your replies to everyone who has chosen to respond to you and I didn’t see your response to me.

After all, I am the original poster and I was addressing it to you.

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi SS

SolaScriptura:

If you don’t know the correct answer to this hen you need to take some time and catch up on the arguments for sola Scriptura. I’ve answered this so many times on different threads that I’m ready to give up. You guys talk about Protestants misrepresenting the Catholic position, but there have been very if any on this board that I have seen who don’t misrepresent the Protestant position. Now there are few that at least ask sensible questions which demonstrate they have a good understanding of the issues. However, for most of you it is just parroting the same tired misrepresentation that are all over the internet.

Now think about it for a second. The Scriptures themselves teaches that there are other authorities. They teach parents, governments, and leaders(i.e. Elders) in the church are authorities. So isn’t it the most basic error to therefore say sola Scriptura means there are no other authorities???

Well, here’s the problem … depending on which protestant I speak with, the definition changes … I believe even James White states that there are no other authoritative sources other than the bible.

Teachers, pastors, compendiums etc are helpful (as I mentioned in my post) but not authoritative.

Now, we can’t keep moving the goal posts, can we?

Hi LaSalle,

Post is in two parts, because I quoted all the previous dialogue for context.

Well, I hope you don’t believe your community is immune from this same thing. You should hear the different answers I get from Catholics on discussion about Oral Tradition, Papal Infallibility, and Private Interpretation. Most of the time, I know better then they do about what the official position of their church is. So we can both talk about moving goal posts if you like.

You believe wrongly about James White, and I know that for a fact. Here is the problem in your reasoning. Authoritative does not mean infallible, nor does it mean you submit to an authority on every jot and tittle, unless you believe it is infallible. So James White, as do I, believe Elders, parents, and even the government are more than just helpful. They are authorities that we should submit to, however with all fallible authorities there comes a point where you may have to resist it. This is clear in the Scriptures. For example, the Apostles had to resist their Jewish authorities at some point to submit to a greater authority(i.e. Jesus Christ and the Scriptures). The Apostle Peter resisted the charge of the Sanhedrin when they ordered him to never preach in the name of Jesus again. Sorrowfully, I would resist the authority of my parents if they commanded me to do what I knew was evil. Now, does this mean the above are only helpful or do they have real authority? They have real authority, but it is not unchecked authority, because there is a higher authority, that is God and His word.

SolaScriptura:

A principle itself cannot guarantee any results unless it is used correctly.

AMEN! … problem is - they (Methodists, Baptists, add any other denomination here) all believe that they are using it correctly!

Who decides who is using SS correctly?

Yes, and the same is true for your rule of faith with the examples, listed down below. I will respond to your “response” down below, but for now I’m making the point that you have the same problem. Also, just because two individuals come to different conclusion it does not always mean that one is using the Scripture incorrectly. All things are not to be known in this life and differences of opinion is not always a big problem as Catholics often try to make them for polemical purposes.

You asked who decides who is using it correctly. Well, it is decided just like it is decided amongst you Catholics when you can’t determine in what sense is Scripture inerrant. You look at the evidence and the material and discuss it. This doesn’t guarantee that you will come to the same conclusion, but that is not the case for anything. We are fallen human beings and the kind of agreement and certainty you are looking for on these things will not be found before Christ returns. You don’t even have it in your communion despite your attempt to sweep it under a rug down below.

continued with next post …

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

For example, if your church’s system is the Apostolic system then all of the denominations and heretics eventually go back to your system. Remember, there were many heretics and splits before the Reformation. So does your system work?

Those who leave, leave. God gave free will, whether they come back depends on them accepting the authority of the church again … what has that to do with the ‘Apostolic system’ again?

You can’t see that amazing log in your eye as you are trying to pluck out the splinter in the Protestant eye? When Protestants split or there are heretics in our ranks it is because of the unworkable nature of sola Scriptura, however when you have the same problem in your ranks it is because of “free will”. We both grant that people have free will to leave, but that is not the issue. If you expect the Protestant rule of faith to prevent these things why doesn’t the your own rule of faith prevent them?

SolaScriptura:

It doesn’t seem like the 3 equal infallible sources have worked that well. Even today Catholicism is full of contradictory beliefs. There are Traditionalists, Modernists, Feenyites, Old Catholic Church, charismatic Catholics, different views on evolution and creation, material sufficiency of Scripture and those who deny it, different views on the inerrancy of Scriptures, different views on when Pope’s have spoken infallible, different views on what Trent teaches, different views on if Vatican II is infallible, different views on predestination, different views on who can be saved outside the church, and the list goes on and on and on. The only difference is that you jam all these different beliefs under one roof say, “Ta da, Unity!!” Yeah, right

There will always be discension, whoever does not subject themselves to the Pope is not catholic. It’s quite simple.

You call that an answer? Actually it is not about no subjecting themselves to the Pope. First of all the Pope hasn’t ruled on all these issues. Second, those who disagree with you would say they are subjecting themselves to the Pope, it is you who are not( who decides who is correct?) Third some would say which Pope? They are in subjection to one Pope, but a latter Pope contradicted the previous which means he is no real Pope( who decides who is correct, you can’t say the current Pope, because the other side doesn’t believe he is a Pope?). Fourth, they often disagree on their interpretation of the infallible council or the infallible Pope so who decides who is correct? Finally, there are some things the Pope will never rule on so you are left with some latitude, therefore your rule of faith will never resolve the debate so once again who is correct?

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hey Sola,

Did you forget about me? I just went through your replies to everyone who has chosen to respond to you and I didn’t see your response to me.

After all, I am the original poster and I was addressing it to you.

Peace,
Jacobaer

Hi Jacobaer,

You are right. It is because of you I have the distinct pleasure of having a thread in my name. How can I ever repay you? Oh, OK, by answering your post. You are next, whenever I get an opportunity

Grace and Peace,
S.S.