Is sola Scriptura Infallible? Protestant says yes!

[Lampo]

God’s authority in the Scripture themselves. Read 2 Timothy 3 where is says just that about the Scriptures in reference to Timothy in his childhood. Now of course this was even before the full canon we have today.

2 Tim 3 says Scripture is profitable, NOT sufficient. Yes, Paul is talking about the OT.

 

[SolaScriptura]

2 Tim 3 says Scripture is profitable, NOT sufficient. Yes, Paul is talking about the OT.

The question on the table was whose authority I was relying on to know every needed for salvation is in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

What was able to make him wise for salvation through faith in Christ? The Scriptures.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can I see the list of big T tradition?

Sure. In no particular order:

1. 
   *]Baptismal Regeneration
   *]Apostolic Succession
   *]The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
   *]Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
   *]The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
   *]The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
   *]The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
   *]The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
   *]The Canon of the OT and NT
   *]Sunday as the day of worship
   *]Purgatory
   *]The Immaculate Conception
   *]The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
   *]The Assumption of Mary
   None of these things are taught Formally in the Bible.
   
   Hope this helps.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

The question on the table was whose authority I was relying on to know every needed for salvation is in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

What was able to make him wise for salvation through faith in Christ? The Scriptures.

Amen. We agree. We just don’t beleive that it is the only thing.

For does not scripture also say to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Your right, Scripture does make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ but, the same aposlte Paul for whom you quote tells us that we should stand firm in Tradition as well.

No one here will debate with you on the wonders of scriptures but, lets not forget what else is there, especcially thoses that which that wonder attests to in its own being.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sure. In no particular order:

1. 
   *]Baptismal Regeneration
   *]Apostolic Succession
   *]The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
   *]Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
   *]The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
   *]The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
   *]The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
   *]The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
   *]The Canon of the OT and NT
   *]Sunday as the day of worship
   *]Purgatory
   *]The Immaculate Conception
   *]The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
   *]The Assumption of Mary
   None of these things are taught Formally in the Bible.
   
   Hope this helps.

1. 
   Is that an infallible list? Are you sure there are no errors of omission or commission in it? Is this your private interpretation or has the church officially ruled on this as the infallible list?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Amen. We agree. We just don’t beleive that it is the only thing.

For does not scripture also say to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Your right, Scripture does make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ but, the same aposlte Paul for whom you quote tells us that we should stand firm in Tradition as well.

No one here will debate with you on the wonders of scriptures but, lets not forget what else is there, especcially thoses that which that wonder attests to in its own being.

Follow the context Montie. I was answering a specific question not making a complete argument for sola Scriptura :tsktsk:

 

[Randy_Carson]

But the Magisterium itself confesses to not being the word of God and it does not claim inspiration. So already you are facing an uphill battle, because what you are claiming is and theological novum.

I did not claim that the Church is inspired. However, it is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

The church has authority, but having authority does not equal infallibility.

True. Protestant pastors are given authority by those who choose to follow them, but they are not infallible.

The Apostles authority was unique, because they were operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Your church does not claim the same which demonstrates everything the Apostles had does not therefore pass on to the church. Furthermore, you take passages that were uniquely applied to the Apostles and just assume they now apply to the YOUR church without an argument to prove they do.

All you have done is made a case for the Apostles being infallible and the highest authority equal to God speaking, but we don’t deny this. Sola Scriptura is an affirmation of this, and it is so because they were speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Again, this is incorrect. The Catholic Church does claim infallibility. A quick Google search on the terms Catholic Infallibility will lead you to resources.

Now this is what I meant by every answer not being a good answer. You have not brought any evidence to the table for an Oral Tradition outside of Scripture being infallible and equal in authority to the word of God. Also you haven’t brought any cogent evidence to the table that a Bishop in Rome would be granted infallibility. You have given us nothing, but rambling about the Apostles authority and in your final sentence you make an incredible leap of logic to magically apply all of this to the church.

I guess I’m missinig something. The Catholic Church does claim infallibility by virtue of its Apostolic Succession from the original Apostles.

There goes the great big leap of logic that doesn’t even make sense. Your church doesn’t even claim the church is “God-breathed”. Furthermore, you are supposed to be giving evidence for the Bishop of Rome and Oral Tradition outside of Scripture. So once again for all the Catholics constant attacks on sola Scriptura their own rule of faith is even worse if you ask them to provide evidence from Scripture or the early church. It is a theological novum that never existed.

We argue from scripture because of your inability to grasp anything else. I could argue from history, reason, or the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The Catholic Church is and does claim infallibility for the Magisterium and the Pope.

Remember, you also said that we don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. You were wrong then, too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, I meant a list of big T tradition, not already found in the Bible.

Kaycee-

Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture, just not the formal sufficiency of scripture.

We base all of our beliefs on the Bible, so the real issue is not whether something is really in the Bible or not but whether you will concede that it is from your fallible and skeptical vantage point.

However, this is kinda the point, isn’t it? I can show where we get our doctrines, and you will say, “Nope. I don’t see it.” Well, an infallible Church says it is, and I agree by the Grace of God.

That’s why I’m no longer a Protestant.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I did not claim that the Church is inspired. However, it is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

Ummm … Randy, what do you think “God breathed” means. Here is a hint( 2 Timothy 3:15-16). We know it claims to be infallible, but you were supposed to be providing evidence for the claim from Scripture and/or ECFs

True. Protestant pastors are given authority by those who choose to follow them, but they are not infallible.

Yeah and neither is the Pope, but that is the discussion, right?

Again, this is incorrect. The Catholic Church does claim infallibility. A quick Google search on the terms Catholic Infallibility will lead you to resources.

Try to keep up with the argument Randy. I said you church does not claim they are inspired. Inspiration and infallibility are two different things in the mind of your church.

I guess I’m missinig something. The Catholic Church does claim infallibility by virtue of its Apostolic Succession from the original Apostles.

No one is denying what your church claims. The JW and Mormons make some very similar claims. I’m asking you for evidence for that claim in Scripture or early tradition. You made some arguments, but none of them dealt with the meat of my questions. What evidence do you have that only a Bishop in Rome would be given the gift of infallibility?

We argue from scripture because of your inability to grasp anything else. I could argue from history, reason, or the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The Catholic Church is and does claim infallibility for the Magisterium and the Pope.

You are free to argue from Scripture or the ECF. I just want good arguments and non sequiturs and special pleading.

Remember, you also said that we don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. You were wrong then, too.

That is only your private interpretation, which I’m beginning to notice you are very fond of. You make a good Protestant in Catholic clothing. However, Fr Raymond Brown and Fr Joseph Fitzmyer probably the two best Romans Catholic scholars of the 20th century were both appointed by Popes to serve on Pontifical Biblical Commissions would disagree with you. BTW, are they part of the teaching magisterium that you all claim we need? So who should we believe. Randy Carson the internet apologists or those two scholars that Popes have appointed on Biblical Commissions? :bigyikes:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Every Christian should listen to the church, but this does not mean in an absolute sense. The Scriptures themselves warn us against wolves arising in the church that we should refute and not listen to.

The difference is in the approach to this problem.

Catholics seek to convert the wolves or drive them out of the Church.

Protestants leave the Church and start a new one across the street.

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” )2 Timothy 4:3)

This is the blueprint for Protestantism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve never said everything we need to know as Christians is in the Bible. What I have said is that everything we need to know for our salvation is in the bible. Having a list of the books is not needed for our salvation. This is obviously true, because the Jews had what was needed for their salvation before the NT was even written. Think on that.

Uh huh. In that case, why bother with the New Testament at all? Think on that.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Uh huh. In that case, why bother with the New Testament at all? Think on that.

Give a man a fish, he eats for one day. Teach a man to fish, he can eat every day.

Do you affirm that the Jews had what was necessary for salvation before the NT was written(Y/N)?

If yes, then answer your own question.

 

[Lampo]

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Jesus says the powers of death will never prevail against the Church. So even though Jesus appoints sinful human beings such as Peter to lead the Church, Jesus promises that hell will not prevail against her. Because the powers of hell refer to the supernatural, this must mean that the Church, although lead by sinful people, is divinely protected. Because she is so protected, the Church cannot lead the faithful into supernatural error. That is, she is unable to teach error on matters of faith and morals. This inability to teach error on faith and morals is called “infallibility” (it has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the Church’s leaders, which deals with “impeccability”). If the Church were not infallible, the powers of death would indeed prevail over her sinful members. The consistent, 2,000 years of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is that an infallible list? Are you sure there are no errors of omission or commission in it? Is this your private interpretation or has the church officially ruled on this as the infallible list?

This list is not infallible, just as your canon is fallible without the authority of the Church. You have no way of know what books you should look to for teaching about justification by “faith alone”.

However, my list is not a “canon”. It is the doctrines themselves which are infallible. If need be, I can seek clarification from the Church.

You, however, have no place to go.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sure. In no particular order:

1. 
   *]Baptismal Regeneration
   *]Apostolic Succession
   *]The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
   *]Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
   *]The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
   *]The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
   *]The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
   *]The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
   *]The Canon of the OT and NT
   *]Sunday as the day of worship
   *]Purgatory
   *]The Immaculate Conception
   *]The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
   *]The Assumption of Mary
   *]All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
   *]Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
   None of these things are taught Formally in the Bible.
   
   Hope this helps.

1. 
   See new addition in red.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The question on the table was whose authority I was relying on to know every needed for salvation is in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

What was able to make him wise for salvation through faith in Christ? The Scriptures.

Sure. But Timothy had spent a lot of time under the teaching authority of Paul learning the proper interpretation of those scriptures.

Teaching Authority? Magisterium?

Yes, there is a necessary connection.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Follow the context Montie. I was answering a specific question not making a complete argument for sola Scriptura :tsktsk:

Would you do so, please. Picking up bits and pieces of your argument scattered across multiple threads is not easy.

Perhaps you could post one clear, concise and definitive expression of the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Or at least tell us the name of the book that you have taken all this from, so we can read the author’s words instead of your interpretation of them.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This list is not infallible, just as your canon is fallible without the authority of the Church. You have no way of know what books you should look to for teaching about justification by “faith alone”.

However, my list is not a “canon”. It is the doctrines themselves which are infallible. If need be, I can seek clarification from the Church.

You, however, have no place to go.

If your list is not infallible then what good is it? You could be wrong on every single entry. We want the infallible list, you know how you say we need an infallible list of the canon? Remember I have claimed I don’t need an infallible list for my belief, however your contention is that we do. So where is the infallible list Randy?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sure. But Timothy had spent a lot of time under the teaching authority of Paul learning the proper interpretation of those scriptures.

Teaching Authority? Magisterium?

Yes, there is a necessary connection.

LOL!!! Randy, Paul said Timothy knew from childhood. I don’t think Paul was teaching him the proper interpretation when he was a baby.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ummm … Randy, what do you think “God breathed” means. Here is a hint( 2 Timothy 3:15-16). We know it claims to be infallible, but you were supposed to be providing evidence for the claim from Scripture and/or ECFs.

I am trying to be careful to distinguish between infallibility and inspiration. Before we go further, which of these two expressions comes closest to defining “God-Breathed”.

Try to keep up with the argument Randy.

Try to ease up on the condescending ad hominems. Fair enough?

I said you church does not claim they are inspired. Inspiration and infallibility are two different things in the mind of your church.

Good for now.

No one is denying what your church claims. The JW and Mormons make some very similar claims. I’m asking you for evidence for that claim in Scripture or early tradition. You made some arguments, but none of them dealt with the meat of my questions. What evidence do you have that only a Bishop in Rome would be given the gift of infallibility?

Apostolic Succession.

You are free to argue from Scripture or the ECF. I just want good arguments and non sequiturs and special pleading.

Thank you.

That is only your private interpretation, which I’m beginning to notice you are very fond of.

As are you. In fact, you have no choice but to offer personal interpretation since you have no other authority from which to make your arguments. This is Protestantism exposed.

On the other hand, I quoted passages from what three, four, five official Church documents, and you said, “Well, that’s just your interpretation of what those documents mean.” How can I refute that circular logic? That it’s only your interpretation of my interpretation.

You make a good Protestant in Catholic clothing.

You betcha. I’m a convert. Strong in some areas, weak in others, but improving fast.

However, Fr Raymond Brown and Fr Joseph Fitzmyer probably the two best Romans Catholic scholars of the 20th century were both appointed by Popes to serve on Pontifical Biblical Commissions would disagree with you. BTW, are they part of the teaching magisterium that you all claim we need? So who should we believe. Randy Carson the internet apologists or those two scholars that Popes have appointed on Biblical Commissions?

I know you think you have a winning argument here, and we’ve been down this path before.

Two anecdotes:

1. President Bush has Colin Powell in his cabinet. Powell’s competence, his expertise, in some areas is unquestioned. But I don’t think Bush is paying one bit of attention to Powell’s ideas on policy for Iraq.
2. Not long ago, a priest explained to my wife that artificial birth control is okay now that we are older and she’s had seven pregnancies. He was well-meaning but wrong. ABC is intrinsically evil.

Brown and Fitzmyer were highly regarded as experts in their fields, but that doesn’t make them infallible nor does it make them right on every issue. Some brilliant minds opposed Humanae Vitae, as well, but Paul VI stunned the western world. End of story.