Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[guanophore]

Parker, here again is my post from Wednesday.

Still waiting for you to quote me where the Bible claims it is self-authenticating.

Don’t hold your breath, Kay Cee. You will have a long wait.

 

[Tomster]

No it is black and white the saints and the aints, the saved and the unsaved, the Christian and the non-Christian. It is you that reject the teaching of the apostles; I embrace them because they are the words of God working through men and by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit the veil of blindness was removed about 7 years ago.

Let’s not go dancing until you read and understand Romans 8:19. That one verse should strike fire in the heart of any religious person.

Sonny,

Perhaps this analysis will strike something within you to rethink your position.

Protestantism, no matter how vague and indefinite may be its various creeds, is based on three principles:

(1) Sources of Faith - According to which the Scriptures and nothing but the Scriptures must be accepted.

(2) Means of Justification - A man is justified by faith alone.

(3) Constitution of the Church - All believers constitute a universal priesthood, all having the right and duty not only to read and interpret the Bible, but also to take part in the government and public affairs of the Church.

For starters, let’s focus on the first principle the “Sources of Faith.”

I think it is safe to say that all Protestant denominations would agree with the following statement: “We believe, we confess, and we teach that the only rule and guide, according to which all dogmas and all doctors must be considered and judged, are nothing else but the prophetical and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testament. This is the religion of Protestants.” This means the supremacy of the Bible and its exclusive fountain-head of knowledge and information concerning the Christian religion by means of private interpretation. Tell me if I am wrong.

We Catholics believe that the above statement is illogical and contradictory. And this is why. We believe that Faith consists in the submission of the intellect to a higher authority for what man must believe, whether he understands it or not. It implies dependence and reliance on something higher than man’s intellect. It is evident that in this case reason is guided by Faith. On the contrary, when private interpretation constitutes reason as the sole Judge, then the last word rests only with the intellect, that is, the reader or hearer. If only with the intellect, then there is no submission of the intellect to Faith: hence there is no faith, because there is no teacher to direct the intellect. If no faith or no teacher, why and what is the intellect - the reader or hearer - trying to learn? How can it be guided? By excluding authority the intellect excludes faith in God, or in His Church, and proclaims itself a little god. Reason is deified.

Nor can it be said that, in the matter of private interpretation, reason constitutes as its teacher or higher authority the Bible itself. The Protestant reader or hearer, according to his own statement, constitutes his private intellect as the sole Judge. Who tells him that he must learn religion from the Bible and only from the Bible to conform his life accordingly? If he persists in affirming that that is the Creed of his Church, he must confess that there is some authority, higher than his intellect, namely, the Creed of his Church. But, how can he logically admit the authority of the Creed of his Church over his intellect, when by his own confessionhe asserts that his intellect is the only Judge? In such a case he is the Judge of his Church and Creed. Can you see how illogical your position is?

(cont.)

 

[guanophore]

Hi,

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

Of course that which is from God is self authenticating. The issue is, what came from God? No, it was not “common knowledge” which books were inspired. If that were the case, then a canon would not have been necessary. On the contrary, there were 400+ writings floating around at the time, all claiming to be inspired by God, including Gnostic gospels. Some of the writings were being read in the Churches just as the NT letters are today, but they did not make the canon.

How did the Church know which books belonged in the canon, and which did not?

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto.

Which seems to refute your entire premise…

Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible.

I find it curious that you would use this factor, since the majority of the NT quotes come from the Septuagint, which Protestants reject. How come the referneces to Sacred Tradtiion and the Deuterocanon have no weight when using this factor? It seems that your methods are inconsistent.

But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

We are not demanding it of the Bible. We are demanding it of those who espouse the SS viewpoint. It is a viewpoint that cannot even validate itself by it’s own standards. When you respond this way, it becomes very clear that you also realize the standard you are using is not valid.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

Of course they would sound like nonsense to a person who is married to an extrabiblical man made tradition like Sola Scriptura. When that doctrine, practice or whatever y’all are calling it nowadays is challenged by it’s own claims, it fails miserably.

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this.

There is no need for us to ask this question, as it is clear through the history of the Reformation, at which time the SS doctrine was invented. Protestants wanted to replace the authority appointed by Christ, and invented this practice to justify their rebellion against the Church He founded.

To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

I can understand why you want to change the question, since you realize that there is no valid answer for it. The bottom line is that SS is self refuting, since it cannot validate itself according to it’s own standard. If Scripture is the final rule of faith, and Scripture no where claims to be that sole rule of faith, the only foundation upon which such a standard can exist is the invention of people 1600 years removed from the Church Christ founded.

 

[Tomster]

No it is black and white the saints and the aints, the saved and the unsaved, the Christian and the non-Christian. It is you that reject the teaching of the apostles; I embrace them because they are the words of God working through men and by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit the veil of blindness was removed about 7 years ago.

Let’s not go dancing until you read and understand Romans 8:19. That one verse should strike fire in the heart of any religious person.

Sonny,

Not only is your position illogical, it is contradictory. This is why.

When you speak of faith in Scriptures, you must certainly mean a profession of divine faith. You declare that the only books of the Old and New Testament are the sole rule and guide, by which all dogmas and all doctors must be weighed and judged.

This statement contains three points. The first point declares that, not only are all those books sacred and divine, but also that they are the only books, truly sacred and divine, which constitute the only “Rule of Faith.”

The second point proclaims that “there is no other word of God but those sacred and divine books which must be believed, nor any other doctrine of faith, which is not contained in, and which cannot be proved by, those divine and sacred books.”

The third point asserts that everyone of the faithful is a sufficient interpreter of the true sense of the Sacred Scripture and that all dogmas and all doctors must be considered and judged according to those divine and sacred books, which form the only “Rule of Faith.” Hence, they deny the Church is the authentic interpeter of the true sense of Scritpures; on the contrary, you claim that such right of interpretation belongs to every man and woman. This is what you call private judgment.

(cont.)

 

[Tiberius1701]

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

Miguel, read what you just wrote very carefully. If “self-authenticating” is the same as “self-evident,” then the “self,” i.e. the Bible in this case, can authenticate or can give evidence for itself. That’s precisely what Kay Cee is asking Parker to show it doing. You’re absolutely right that those two terms mean virtually the same thing and that for Scripture, according to you, “it doesn’t need something external to it to verify it’s claim.” That’s precisely why Kay Cee’s asking Parker to show something internal to it to verify the claim that it doesn’t need something external to it to verify it’s authentity. If it is what you and Parker claim it is, then it’s authentic because it claims it’s own authenticity. That’s all we’re asking you to show… Because we know it doesn’t. The Catholic Church told you that it’s “authentic because it’s from God,” the Bible did not. Thus, it’s “Catholic-Church-authenticated” not “self-authenticated.” If you want a book that’s *self-*authenticating, try the Book of Mornon or the Koran…

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

Perhaps, but that’s not the claim we’re debating at the moment. We don’t deny that these books (plus the ones you reject) are from God. We deny that they all self-authenticating.

So that pushes the question back. How did those Christians—prior to an official decree—already know the books they were reading were scripture? Peter, for example, mentions that some people were misreading Paul’s letters as they were the other scriptures. This indicates that at least Peter thought Paul’s letters had attained the status of scripture by the time he penned 2 Peter 3:16.

Yeah, and who was Peter? Answer: the first Pope. So, for the sake of argument, your single person who verifies that some of Paul’s writings are Scripture (you know, assuming that Peter meant “Sacred Scriptures” when he used the Greek word meaning “stuff written down,” which may or may not have been true when he wrote it down) is the head of the Catholic Church. So… while it’s vaguely insinuative that one book says a few others are Sacred Scripture (though not precise about which ones), it’s not actually "self-"athenticating, it’s rather "Pope-"authenticating. Hmm…

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto. Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible. But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

That’s why the Church has never asked the Bible to do that, Miguel. But, by claiming that it’s self-authenticating or self-evidenced, it’s you and Parker, aka the local, representative Potestants, who are asking an unfair and impossible task of the Bible. We know it’s unfair. That’s why we’re asking you to look it in the face and recognize what you’re doing to the Bible! Your claim that it’s self-authenticating, unless it’s based in salid, quotable bible-passages (those same passages that you just acknowledged couldn’t even exist if you wanted them to), then guess what you and Parker are doing, Miguel. You’re making a gratis asseritur argument! See, normally we would just do what your signature suggests - toss the unsubstantiated claim out without argument, but, unfortunately, we know you won’t drop it that way. So, to help you see how ludicrous a claim it is, we’re trying to make you look it in the face. Capice? Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur …unless the guy making the assertion is too blinded to realize he’s making a gratis assertion.

 

[Tomster]

No it is black and white the saints and the aints, the saved and the unsaved, the Christian and the non-Christian. It is you that reject the teaching of the apostles; I embrace them because they are the words of God working through men and by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit the veil of blindness was removed about 7 years ago.

Let’s not go dancing until you read and understand Romans 8:19. That one verse should strike fire in the heart of any religious person.

Sonny,

Concluding . . .

Unfortunately for you, none of these three points - which according to you are the fundamental doctrine of your belief - is contained in the Scriptures! If you search the Scriptures from cover to cover, you will not find any one of them. The consequence is, therefore, while you believe, declare, and proclaim, that nothing is to be believed, which is not written in Scriptures, at the same you believe, declare, and proclaim before all of us on Catholic Answers, as a fundamental principle of religion, what was never written in Scripture.

This is something affirmative and negative of the same principle!

It is a CONTRADICTION!

Tell me if I am wrong if you would, please.

 

[Tomster]

Hi,

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

So that pushes the question back. How did those Christians—prior to an official decree—already know the books they were reading were scripture? Peter, for example, mentions that some people were misreading Paul’s letters as they were the other scriptures. This indicates that at least Peter thought Paul’s letters had attained the status of scripture by the time he penned 2 Peter 3:16.

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto. Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible. But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

Miguel,

Let’s push the question back a little further if you would.

Posts # 198, 200 and 202. Care to reply?

 

[Tomster]

Of course that which is from God is self authenticating. The issue is, what came from God? No, it was not “common knowledge” which books were inspired. If that were the case, then a canon would not have been necessary. On the contrary, there were 400+ writings floating around at the time, all claiming to be inspired by God, including Gnostic gospels. Some of the writings were being read in the Churches just as the NT letters are today, but they did not make the canon.

How did the Church know which books belonged in the canon, and which did not?

Which seems to refute your entire premise…

I find it curious that you would use this factor, since the majority of the NT quotes come from the Septuagint, which Protestants reject. How come the referneces to Sacred Tradtiion and the Deuterocanon have no weight when using this factor? It seems that your methods are inconsistent.

We are not demanding it of the Bible. We are demanding it of those who espouse the SS viewpoint. It is a viewpoint that cannot even validate itself by it’s own standards. When you respond this way, it becomes very clear that you also realize the standard you are using is not valid.

Of course they would sound like nonsense to a person who is married to an extrabiblical man made tradition like Sola Scriptura. When that doctrine, practice or whatever y’all are calling it nowadays is challenged by it’s own claims, it fails miserably.

There is no need for us to ask this question, as it is clear through the history of the Reformation, at which time the SS doctrine was invented. Protestants wanted to replace the authority appointed by Christ, and invented this practice to justify their rebellion against the Church He founded.

I can understand why you want to change the question, since you realize that there is no valid answer for it. The bottom line is that SS is self refuting, since it cannot validate itself according to it’s own standard. If Scripture is the final rule of faith, and Scripture no where claims to be that sole rule of faith, the only foundation upon which such a standard can exist is the invention of people 1600 years removed from the Church Christ founded.

Thank you very much!

 

[EricFilmer]

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Actually Miguel, both Kay Cee and I have been trying to get Parker to explain exactly what he means by the term “self-authenticating”. So far he has only given a brief response, saying that it is a reference to hermeneutics. I have asked him to clarify this further.

As a side note, in this thread I brought up your definition of Sola Scriptura but Parker disagrees with your distinction between a principle and a doctrine (he sees the terms as interchangeable).

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

But consider what happens in debates between Catholics and adherents of Sola Scriptura. For example, I can say the same thing about Sacred Tradition: “If Sacred Tradition is the Word of God then it doesn’t need something external to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God.” And yet such a claim would probably not compel an adherent of Sola Scriptura in accepting Sacred Tradition, so why does it suffice for saying that Scripture is self-authenticating? In other words, why does stating that Scripture is self-authenticating an acceptable testimony to the validity of Scripture (as being divinely inspired) but stating that Sacred Tradition is self-authenticating not an acceptable testimony for the same thing?

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

As you may recall from our past discussions, the ancient Jews and Christians heavily debated on the validity of hundreds of texts which claimed divine inspiration. For example, the canons left out the Book of Enoch and the *Letter of Barnabas *which many of the early Christians (including some ECFs) regarded as inspired.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto. Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible. But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

First of all, the Book of Enoch was referred to in the NT’s Letter of Jude, and yet the Book of Enoch was left out of the OT canon.

Secondly, I agree that a book in the Bible would not refer to the “Bible” as a whole, but a book in the Bible could refer to the concept of Scripture as a whole. I will remind you that you, yourself, have made this argument in the past in defending Sola Scriptura (such as your comments concerning passages from Paul as representing a slogan to be applied to Scripture in general). Therefore, an author of one of the books in the Bible could have made a statement about Scripture (in general) being self-authenticating, but none did.

Moreover, concerning the challenge Kay Cee set forth, the author of a particular biblical book could have explained through the process of self-authentication why that particular book is divinely inspired, but, once again, none did. We see certain authors assuring the reader that what is written comes from eye-witnesses, but that is not self-authentication (and besides, the authors of the Gnostic scriptures made the same claim).

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

In terms of this thread, Parker has been asked this question. To help you understand the flow of this particular aspect of the conversation, here are the relevant posts from me, Kay Cee and Parker. It actually begins with a challenge Kay Cee presented way back in Post #59:

Parker, you have already shown us that you believe the 27 books in the New Testament are scripture by quoting them. In fact, you can’t point to what those books say and declare it is the word of God until you have already accepted them as scripture. It is therefore essential to know those books are scripture before you can derive anything in them as infallibly coming from God.

So where in scripture does it tell us those 27 books are scripture? Where can I derive from scripture, for example, that the gospel of Matthew is scripture?

Please quote book, chapter, and verse that tells us we should accept each and every one of those 27 books as scripture.

If you cannot, then you have failed to show that “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture” for you will not have shown us where you yourself derive the belief that those 27 books are indeed scripture. In other words, where from scripture do you derive this essential belief?

Parker did not initially respond to this specific post. In a later post I pointed out to Parker that the Scriptures are not sufficient to tell us how to determine what books are truly divinely inspired and which are not. In other words, like Kay Cee, I pointed out that Scripture does not tell us what books ought to be in the Bible. Parker responded to my post by saying…

That doesn’t prove insufficiency; SS says we look to Scriptures for faith and practice. If we wanted to determine what is and what’s not part of the canon, we often let the Scriptures authenticate itself. It’s known to do that.

I would like to see an example of the Scriptures authenticating itself. I’m not denying this (nor confirming it), I just want a clearer understanding of what you are describing here.

What I mean by self-authenticating is that scripture quotes other sources that consider it the word. I could be more specific if you want.

I’m afraid I have to ask you to please be more specific. I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to convey here (at least not yet).

By this time, Kay Cee gave a third reminder that Parker had not yet addressed the challenge presented in the above quote from Post #59. Parker then responded to it, but the context also suggests that it was meant as a response to by request for clarification on the idea of Scripture being self-authenticating:

Scripture is self-authenticating; this is part of hermeneutics. Pastors, Preachers, Laymen, and (yes) even the Magisterium uses the same rule. It’s not like the Holy Spirit decided to drop by and deliver the ‘sacred index’ of the Holy Canon.

So it was only at this point that Kay Cee presented the post you responded to. As you can see, Parker has been asked exactly what he means by the term “self-authenticating” and his definition is still far from clear.

 

[paul_c]

[IMoreover, concerning the challenge Kay Cee set forth, the author of a particular biblical book could have explained through the process of self-authentication why that particular book is divinely inspired, but, once again, none did. We see certain authors assuring the reader that what is written comes from eye-witnesses, but that is not self-authentication (and besides, the authors of the Gnostic scriptures made the same claim).

I doubt very much that any New Testametn author, with the possible exception of St. John with Revelations, knew that their writings were divinely inspired. These writings were functional documents, the Gospel and Acts were writings of historical witness. The epistles were simply letters of instruction. It took the Church to identify them as divinely inspired and worthy of belief.
[/quote]

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Of course that which is from God is self authenticating. The issue is, what came from God?.

Can’t you see the problem in the question you’re asking? If you affirm that something from God is self-authenticating, then your question “what came from God?” can’t arise in the first place. The answer would be, “that which comes from God is from God.” In other words, it’s tautologous.

If you do answer the question, then you go down the path of infinite regress. For one can just keep pressing the “how do you know?” question until you get pushed back to the original principle–i.e., “that which is from God is self-authenticating,” which you affirm on the one hand, but then take away with the other, as soon as you ask, “what came from God?”

This strongly suggests that, at the end of the day, you really don’t believe in self-authenticating truth, but rather only the truth that you have been told to believe, along with the belief that the institution that told you this truth is at least trustworthy, if not infallible.

But where did you get that idea from? Oh–that’s right–from the very same institution. Thus you believe the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church tells you that’s what you’re supposed to believe.

 

[DCNBILL]

Can’t you see the problem in the question you’re asking? If you affirm that something from God is self-authenticating, then your question “what came from God?” can’t arise in the first place. The answer would be, “that which comes from God is from God.” In other words, it’s tautologous.

If you do answer the question, then you go down the path of infinite regress. For one can just keep pressing the “how do you know?” question until you get pushed back to the original principle–i.e., “that which is from God is self-authenticating,” which you affirm on the one hand, but then take away with the other, as soon as you ask, “what came from God?”

This strongly suggests that, at the end of the day, you really don’t believe in self-authenticating truth, but rather only the truth that you have been told to believe, along with the belief that the institution that told you this truth is at least trustworthy, if not infallible.

But where did you get that idea from? Oh–that’s right–from the very same institution. Thus you believe the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church tells you that’s what you’re supposed to believe.

This statement would indicate a belief that the Bible assembled itself???

 

[Tomster]

Can’t you see the problem in the question you’re asking? If you affirm that something from God is self-authenticating, then your question “what came from God?” can’t arise in the first place. The answer would be, “that which comes from God is from God.” In other words, it’s tautologous.

If you do answer the question, then you go down the path of infinite regress. For one can just keep pressing the “how do you know?” question until you get pushed back to the original principle–i.e., “that which is from God is self-authenticating,” which you affirm on the one hand, but then take away with the other, as soon as you ask, “what came from God?”

This strongly suggests that, at the end of the day, you really don’t believe in self-authenticating truth, but rather only the truth that you have been told to believe, along with the belief that the institution that told you this truth is at least trustworthy, if not infallible.

But where did you get that idea from? Oh–that’s right–from the very same institution. Thus you believe the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church tells you that’s what you’re supposed to believe.

Just like Luther’s book of Concord, Anglicanism’s 39 Articles, Calvin’s Institutes, etc.

 

[Tomster]

This statement would indicate a belief that the Bible assembled itself???

Before falling from the sky.

 

[Tomster]

Miguel,

Let’s push the question back a little further if you would.

Posts # 198, 200 and 202. Care to reply?

Miguel,

Could you at least try and refute the illustration I gave in posts 198, 200 and 202?

 

[Tomster]

Hi,

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

So that pushes the question back. How did those Christians—prior to an official decree—already know the books they were reading were scripture? Peter, for example, mentions that some people were misreading Paul’s letters as they were the other scriptures. This indicates that at least Peter thought Paul’s letters had attained the status of scripture by the time he penned 2 Peter 3:16.

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto. Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible. But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

Miguel,

To your last paragraph - It is a perfectly good question to ask a Protestant “where does the Bible teach that it [the Bible] is self-authenticing?” because it goes right to the subject at hand, Sola Scriptura! If it’s not in the Bible, then according to your standards, it is not to be believed.

Since you cannot show where it is directly stated in the Bible but suggest that we ask “a Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this” you have come to the point where you are depending on an extra-biblical source to substantiate your claim.

Very illogical of you and contradictory if I may add.

 

[ddarko]

Hi,

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

If biblical truths were self-evident, why did God give the Bible in the first place? Are you saying that “Bible is the word of God” is self-evident? Even that is obviously false because there’s a huge amount of non-Christians (Muslims for an example) who believe otherwise.

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

Um, maybe you are forgetting that at the time of canonization, there were many other “commonly” accepted canons.

So that pushes the question back. How did those Christians—prior to an official decree—already know the books they were reading were scripture? Peter, for example, mentions that some people were misreading Paul’s letters as they were the other scriptures. This indicates that at least Peter thought Paul’s letters had attained the status of scripture by the time he penned 2 Peter 3:16.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

I agree. So is the derivative protestant position that the Bible alone is enough for salvation. The bible can obviously be interpreted in multitude of ways. Whose to say which interpretation is correct?

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

I am afraid self authentication IS NOT the problem. The problem is how one knows which interpretation of a biblical text is correct. Do you have an answer to that question?

God Bless

 

[JonathonofOhio]

The Bible is a set of documents that contains an account of the Word of God as written down by man. Jesus is the Word of God-- even the Bible tells you that. Jesus gave us the Church, the Holy Spirit, and appointed leaders to guide us (all of which is documented in the Bible). He didn’t write a book, and he didn’t say “all you need to know is right here in this book.”

Furthermore, the apostle instructs us:

“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” - 2 Peter 1:20

Who in his right mind would endeavor to become a doctor by simply reading text books (2 Timothy 3:16 shows that it is used as a teaching aid, not as a teacher)? Knowledge of medicine is passed from person to person and books are used as a teaching aid. No one here in this forum would go to a person to get medical treatment who said they are a doctor simply because that person read a book about how to treat certain ailments.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m not going to listen to some guy who says he knows how I can get saved simply because he read the Bible.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Sola scriptura is non-sensical.

It is similar to giving a classroom full children a book…now read it and understand.

Doesn’t work that way, especially since Scripture itself states Faith first comes to us through…THE WORD!