Burden of proof in Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter trumpet152
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Rome does not have the burden of proving that the sources outside of Scripture are equally authoritative, because of the simple fact that the other parts of the Word of God draw their authority from the same source as the Bible, namely, the Catholic Church. The Bible has any weight at all only because the Catholic Church, by Her authority, declares that it does. This same authority of the Catholic Church also declares Sacred Tradition to be of weight.

It is not the burden of Rome to prove that Sacred Tradition is of equal weight to the Bible, but rather it is the burden for those outside of Rome to prove that the Bible has any authority itself. The Catholic Church claims to be a Divine institution of God endowed with the authority to teach by God Himself. By this authority, She accepts the cannonical books of the Bible as authoritative. By this same authority, She also accepts Sacred Tradition as so.

However, those whom do not profess to be of the Catholic Church have no evidence to support their claim that the Bible is authoritative at all. Does the Bible itself say so? Surely not, and, if it did, this fact would be of no value, for one cannot prove the authority of something from within itself. The Qu’ran, too, claims to be authoritative, and yet Protestants do not regard it so, for this is not proof. Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God, and yet this is not proof that he truly was. So too would a claim within the Bible to be authoritative fall short of the burden of proof.

Protestants often declare the Bible’s authority to rest in the fact that it contains no error. However, this is not proof of its authority either. For inerrancy proves only only itself, not authority. Further, in appealing to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, one must first prove that they are in fact inerrant, a task which can be done only to the extent as those things which are contained therin are testable, and, while much of that so contained is testable, much is not. Indeed, should one wish to appeal to Biblical inerrancy for proof of its inerrancy, one must prove the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, indeed, even the existence of the soul. These tasks are those which cannot be accomplished in this life.

In short, the burden lies not on Rome to prove Sacred Tradition. Rather, the burden rests on all of those whom reject Rome to prove the authority of the Bible at all.
Click to expand...
This argument assumes a “completed” Church, rather than recognizing the formative phases of both the Church and canon. Therefore, your objection is equivocal:
While true that the NT Church existed before the NT canon, it didn’t predate the word of God, for the NT Church was begun by apostolic preaching. Both in terms of historical and causal priority, the Word preceded the Church. The difference is simply a distinction between the spoken and written word as a means of transmission.

Your argument also fails to distinguish between the individual origin of the canon and its final formation. In terms of their origin, the books of the NT were enjoined on the NT churches. When the apostles (James, John, Peter or Paul) wrote a gospel or letter, this was sent to a local church or directed to the church at large and circulated widely (Gal 1:2; Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1). The church was obliged to submit to the authority of this document. It didn’t issue from the Church but rather was issued to the Church. The NT documents are the work of inspired individuals, not conciliar documents. The Church has a role in the general dissemination of the NT, but that is not at all the same thing as a productive role. Without the US Postal Service I might not receive my mail, but that doesn’t make the Mail Man the final authority of what is “really” mail and what is not.

Peace to you,
Richard
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
… When the apostles (James, John, Peter or Paul) wrote a gospel or letter, this was sent to a local church or directed to the church at large and circulated widely (Gal 1:2; Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1). The church was obliged to submit to the authority of this document. It didn’t issue from the Church but rather was issued to the Church. …Peace to you,
Richard
Click to expand...
Submit to the authority of a document? What authority told you that any document is an authority?

Not the Bible. The Bible says the Church, not the Bible (or any document) is the final authority:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

"The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal. I believe this is made obvious in the case of the canon of Scripture as I mentioned. It was the Church that declared the truth about the Bible.

source: geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html

Do you even know why you believe the Bible is inspired at all?

I know why I do:
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
This argument assumes a “completed” Church, rather than recognizing the formative phases of both the Church and canon. Therefore, your objection is equivocal:
While true that the NT Church existed before the NT canon, it didn’t predate the word of God, for the NT Church was begun by apostolic preaching. Both in terms of historical and causal priority, the Word preceded the Church. The difference is simply a distinction between the spoken and written word as a means of transmission.

Your argument also fails to distinguish between the individual origin of the canon and its final formation. In terms of their origin, the books of the NT were enjoined on the NT churches. When the apostles (James, John, Peter or Paul) wrote a gospel or letter, this was sent to a local church or directed to the church at large and circulated widely (Gal 1:2; Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1). The church was obliged to submit to the authority of this document. It didn’t issue from the Church but rather was issued to the Church. The NT documents are the work of inspired individuals, not conciliar documents. The Church has a role in the general dissemination of the NT, but that is not at all the same thing as a productive role. Without the US Postal Service I might not receive my mail, but that doesn’t make the Mail Man the final authority of what is “really” mail and what is not.

Peace to you,
Richard
Click to expand...
There are documents which are purported to be from the Apostles which are not in the Bible. According to this arguement, they ought to be. The gospels of Luke and Mark aren’t from apostles at all but are in the Bible. According to this arguement, they shouldn’t be. But more importantly, how do you know that Romans was really written by Paul? How do you know its not a forgery? How do you know that any of the documents belong in the Bible?

In fact, how can you even begin to consider putting Hebrews in the Bible when nobody knows who wrote it? Maybe Paul wrote it, but then again, maybe Judas wrote it for all anybody knows.

My point is that I believe the Bible because I have a divinely instituted Church to tell me that it is really the word of God. This is the same and only reason St. Augustine believed the Bible was inspired. In fact, its the reason Luther believed it was inspired.

Without this Church authority, anyone who believes the Bible is inspired has exactly the same reason for this belief that Muslims have of the Koran and that Mormons do forthe book of Mormom: someone told their ancestors that it was, and their ancestors told them. Without the Church, the BIble is no more a candidate for inspiration than either of these books. Without this Church authority, anyone who treats the Bible as inspired is resting the eternal destiny of their souls on one gigantic assumption.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
My point is that I believe the Bible because I have a divinely instituted Church to tell me that it is really the word of God.
Click to expand...
And how do you know that your Church has been divinely instituted?

Thanks,
Richard
 
Why bother with all of this rigamarole?

The easiest way to handle this is raise your arms and say in a BOOMING evangelical voice:

“And I say I prayyyyed to Jeaazus!
Can I have an AMEN?!
And the LOORD revealed to ME!” – add any catholic dogma you please here – GLORY GLORY GLORY. Can I have another AMEN?!"

Protestants are quite comfortable with non scriptural pronouncements when they occur in that sort of context. After all, that is how I found out that Jesus is against student loans eventhough the bible doesn’t even mention them.
 
40.png
Magicsilence:
Try Johns gospel, the beginning. It talks pretty clearly about what is the Word of God.

:rolleyes:

In Christ.

Andre.
Click to expand...
That would be my response, as well. The Word, in its fullest sense, is Jesus (John 1:1). I would ask sola scriptura proponents on what basis do they define the Word of God in a much more limited sense.

John 21:25 says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.”

Only Sacred Tradition, from which the written Scriptures were derived, accurately transfers the totality of Christ’s life and the apostolic deposit of faith from generation to generation.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Why bother with all of this rigamarole?

The easiest way to handle this is raise your arms and say in a BOOMING evangelical voice:

“And I say I prayyyyed to Jeaazus!
Can I have an AMEN?!
And the LOORD revealed to ME!” – add any catholic dogma you please here – GLORY GLORY GLORY. Can I have another AMEN?!"

Protestants are quite comfortable with non scriptural pronouncements when they occur in that sort of context. After all, that is how I found out that Jesus is against student loans eventhough the bible doesn’t even mention them.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
40.png
richbansha:
Why bother with all of this rigamarole?

The easiest way to handle this is raise your arms and say in a BOOMING evangelical voice:

“And I say I prayyyyed to Jeaazus!
Can I have an AMEN?!
And the LOORD revealed to ME!” – add any catholic dogma you please here – GLORY GLORY GLORY. Can I have another AMEN?!"

Protestants are quite comfortable with non scriptural pronouncements when they occur in that sort of context. After all, that is how I found out that Jesus is against student loans eventhough the bible doesn’t even mention them.
Click to expand...
:yup: 😛 :rotfl: HILARIOUS!
 
40.png
richbansha:
Why bother with all of this rigamarole?

The easiest way to handle this is raise your arms and say in a BOOMING evangelical voice:

“And I say I prayyyyed to Jeaazus!
Can I have an AMEN?!
And the LOORD revealed to ME!” – add any catholic dogma you please here – GLORY GLORY GLORY. Can I have another AMEN?!"

Protestants are quite comfortable with non scriptural pronouncements when they occur in that sort of context. After all, that is how I found out that Jesus is against student loans eventhough the bible doesn’t even mention them.
Click to expand...
Just another example of why it makes no sense. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
I think the burden of proof is with Catholic teaching.

The earliest scriptures date back to 50AD (Paul’s letters), the gospels were completed by 100AD. These are the very earliest records of Christianity. Paul’s letters are closest to what the first Christians believed. I don’t like the division between scripture/oral tradition. Scripture is the the oral tradition of the first centurly of Chrisitanity WRITTEN DOWN.

Is it possible that the early Christians believed other things but chose not to write them down? Sure. But since they didn’t write them down we simply have no way of knowing what else they believed, and whether they left anything important out of their writings.

I’ve looked around to the dating of Church fathers, and they seem to start in the end of the SECOND century AD and onward.

If one holds the views that the early Christianity is the “truest” Christianity, then the scriptures are far more valuable than the writings of early Church fathers, and even more valuable than the writings of later theologians such as Aquinas.

On the other hand if one places more emphasis on the idea of doctrine becoming better as it is developed by many through time, then the writings of later, more sophisticated theologians, are more valuable.

But as far as a testament to what the earliest Christians believed, Paul’s letters take priority. And in my opinion, the closest to the time of Christ, the more likely the teaching is to convey what Christ actually said.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Why bother with all of this rigamarole?

The easiest way to handle this is raise your arms and say in a BOOMING evangelical voice:

“And I say I prayyyyed to Jeaazus!
Can I have an AMEN?!
And the LOORD revealed to ME!” – add any catholic dogma you please here – GLORY GLORY GLORY. Can I have another AMEN?!"

Protestants are quite comfortable with non scriptural pronouncements when they occur in that sort of context. After all, that is how I found out that Jesus is against student loans eventhough the bible doesn’t even mention them.
Click to expand...
This is sooooo good!! :clapping: :tiphat:
 
40.png
svoboda:
I think the burden of proof is with Catholic teaching.

The earliest scriptures date back to 50AD (Paul’s letters), the gospels were completed by 100AD. These are the very earliest records of Christianity. Paul’s letters are closest to what the first Christians believed. I don’t like the division between scripture/oral tradition. Scripture is the the oral tradition of the first centurly of Chrisitanity WRITTEN DOWN.

Is it possible that the early Christians believed other things but chose not to write them down? Sure. But since they didn’t write them down we simply have no way of knowing what else they believed, and whether they left anything important out of their writings.

I’ve looked around to the dating of Church fathers, and they seem to start in the end of the SECOND century AD and onward.

If one holds the views that the early Christianity is the “truest” Christianity, then the scriptures are far more valuable than the writings of early Church fathers, and even more valuable than the writings of later theologians such as Aquinas.

On the other hand if one places more emphasis on the idea of doctrine becoming better as it is developed by many through time, then the writings of later, more sophisticated theologians, are more valuable.

But as far as a testament to what the earliest Christians believed, Paul’s letters take priority. And in my opinion, the closest to the time of Christ, the more likely the teaching is to convey what Christ actually said.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of writings that are long before the end of the second century. Clement of Rome, for example, wrote in 80 AD!
 
"Rome does not have the burden of proving that the sources outside of Scripture are equally authoritative, because of the simple fact that the other parts of the Word of God draw their authority from the same source as the Bible, namely, the Catholic Church. The Bible has any weight at all only because the Catholic Church, by Her authority, declares that it does. This same authority of the Catholic Church also declares Sacred Tradition to be of weight.

It is not the burden of Rome to prove that Sacred Tradition is of equal weight to the Bible, but rather it is the burden for those outside of Rome to prove that the Bible has any authority itself. The Catholic Church claims to be a Divine institution of God endowed with the authority to teach by God Himself. By this authority, She accepts the cannonical books of the Bible as authoritative. By this same authority, She also accepts Sacred Tradition as so.

However, those whom do not profess to be of the Catholic Church have no evidence to support their claim that the Bible is authoritative at all. Does the Bible itself say so? Surely not, and, if it did, this fact would be of no value, for one cannot prove the authority of something from within itself. The Qu’ran, too, claims to be authoritative, and yet Protestants do not regard it so, for this is not proof. Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God, and yet this is not proof that he truly was. So too would a claim within the Bible to be authoritative fall short of the burden of proof.

Protestants often declare the Bible’s authority to rest in the fact that it contains no error. However, this is not proof of its authority either. For inerrancy proves only only itself, not authority. Further, in appealing to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, one must first prove that they are in fact inerrant, a task which can be done only to the extent as those things which are contained therin are testable, and, while much of that so contained is testable, much is not. Indeed, should one wish to appeal to Biblical inerrancy for proof of its inerrancy, one must prove the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, indeed, even the existence of the soul. These tasks are those which cannot be accomplished in this life.

In short, the burden lies not on Rome to prove Sacred Tradition. Rather, the burden rests on all of those whom reject Rome to prove the authority of the Bible at all."
Beautifully put. I can only say “dang thorough job, sir”.
 
40.png
awalt:
If the Sola Scriptura folks believe in the Bible, what’s their proof that the Bible is inspired? It’s sure not in the Bible…
Click to expand...
SS folks claim this verse as their proof:

2 Tim 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

I grew up in an evangelical church and believed this verse proved SS. About a year and a half ago, I realized that the verse did not say that scripture (i.e. the books of the bible) were the ONLY thing profitable for teaching, correction, or training in righteousness.

Saying Paul was making the case for sola scriptura is reading more into the verse than is there. It is making a leap in logic.
 
This post is inspired by God.

This post is the ONLY thing that you are allowed to use to learn about God.

God loves you.
 
My previous post now has the same proof of inspiration as the Protestant Bible does.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
There are plenty of writings that are long before the end of the second century. Clement of Rome, for example, wrote in 80 AD!
Click to expand...
One example is not “plenty of writings”

Plus, what did he write? I heard what we have is one letter. Am I wrong?
 
40.png
svoboda:
One example is not “plenty of writings”

Plus, what did he write? I heard what we have is one letter. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
He is one example of many. I mentioned him because his letter is one of the earliest, but we have writings from Polycarp and Irenaeus and Ignatius that are all from around 100.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
He is one example of many. I mentioned him because his letter is one of the earliest, but we have writings from Polycarp and Irenaeus and Ignatius that are all from around 100.
Click to expand...
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html Here is the translation of the 1 Clement, which you said dates as early as 80AD

If you’re interested enough, go ahead and read it, see how it compares to present Church teaching.
 
I see another logical inconsistency in sola scriptura. Evangelicals/Protestants claim that everything must be biblically supported and only what is found in the bible is from God.

Yet they pray individually that God will lead them. “Should I take this job”, “should I go to this or that school”, “should I become a missionary”.

So God leads them individually, but for some reason he doesn’t lead the church as a whole. That is God will tell an evangelical to take a job in another state, but he won’t give his church the understanding of the real presence (a ironic example since sola scriptura believers reject the real presence in spite of explicit scriptural evidence).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top