Proof that sola scriptura is not true

  • Thread starter Thread starter jennyhay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
Help a noob…what is BUMP?
Click to expand...
A “bump” gets the thread back to the top of the active thread list where it will likely get more attention.

I had asked a question earlier that I thought would get lost so I quoted my question and got the question moved to the top again.

That may not make sense.
 
Reformed1 said:
This is a little off topic but I thought it wasn’t until Trent that the Catholic church dogmatically (sp?) settled the issue of the canon?

The other councils before that I thought were regarded as provisional or provincial, not sure of the correct term.
The reason I bring this up is that I have heard, don’t have proof, that cardinal Cajetan who questioned Luther rejected what you guys refer to as the deuterocanonicals.
Click to expand...
The councils you are speaking of were Rome, Hippo and Carthage - all at the end of the 4th century, I believe. In all three, the very same canon of Scripture was put forth. Although a few individuals may have had personal doubts about that canon, none of them placed their personal doubts above the authority of the Church to be the final word on the matter - this includes St Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan. That is a fundamental difference.
Luther was the first to start purposely excluding texts from the canon. His doing so appears to be largely based on his personal interpretations of Scripture. Largely in response to this action the council of Trent moved to reaffirm the canon and denounce the other heretical notions that he introduced.
 
Reformed1 said:
BUMP
Click to expand...
This is a proof. Item 2 follows directly from the stated definition of sola scriptura. So while I think that the entirety of item 2 is a true statement as it stands, I (obviously) don’t think that sola scriptura is true.

I believe that scripture is the inerrant infallible Word of God. I just don’t think it teaches sola scriptura. Rather, scripture affirms the authority of the church which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, both defined scripture and pronounced its (scripture’s) authority. So yes, I think scripture is materially sufficient in that it affirms the authority of the church which, in turn, affirms the authority of scripture. But this is not what protestants mean when they say “sola scriptura”.

I know this, because I still am one. Formally, my membership is still with the LCMS. This is a proof that I wrote for myself. I loved being Lutheran. So much so, that I wanted to know what I still “protested” as a protestant in 2006. What I found was that 1) it all rides on sola scriptura, and 2) the Catholics, much to my horror, really had an excellent case. I was particularly bothered by the LCMS assertion that the canon was “theoretically open”. To me, such an assertion implies fallibility.

Were it not for Richard Neuhaus, I would question my sanity.
 
Defining Sola Scriptura depends on who you ask.

Do they hold to a strict SS…only what is found in Scripture is to be believed and practiced…or do they hold to a loose SS…as long as what I believe or practice is not contradicted in Scripture?

How do they know which definition is the correct one?

Jacobaer
 
Reformed1 said:
While there isn’t a codified definition of sola scriptura you should probably start with one that mentions that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

Saying that scripture is simply the sole rule and norm is sort of setting up a straw man.
Click to expand...
Was the Church inerrant or infallible in the act of defining the canon of scripture? If so, how can you claim sola scriptura? If not, how can you claim sola scriptura? If the Church was protected in defining the scriptures then it is logical to say that Christ has protected her in other matters. If the Church was not inerrant or infallible in this act then there is no way of knowing what scripture is. The rule of faith is the continuing tradition(scripture is part of that tradition) of the Church.
 
Reformed I was thinking of your question regarding Catholic acceptance of the 2nd statement. I think you make an interesting observation. I caused me to consider where that dialogue between Catholics and Protestants break down on this issue.

To the Catholic mind Tradition and Scripture have symbiotic relationship (if that is the correct term). Tradition helps us to understand correctly that which is implicit and/or vague in the Bible. While Sacred Scripture explicitly endorses core theology and morals and reveals events surrounding all aspects of the Faith.

So while Tradition sheds light on Scripture, Tradition will possess nothing that isn’t at least implied in Scripture. So really Catholics view themselves as Bible Christians just like Protestants. We love the Bible and honor it, Even in Mass we publically thank God after the reading of every passage and sing a song of praise and stand before the reading of the Gospel.

To us the teachings of Our Lord both oral and written are treasures of infinite value. It seems a shame that a different perception of single doctrine: SS. Should cause so much strife between believers who both have so much love for written Scripture.
 
Hi Reformed1:

You write: While there isn’t a codified definition of sola scriptura you should probably start with one that mentions that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

I have a couple of questions for you. In your opinion whose interpretation of scripture is inerrant and why?

Donna
 
Reformed1 said:
While there isn’t a codified definition of sola scriptura you should probably start with one that mentions that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

Saying that scripture is simply the sole rule and norm is sort of setting up a straw man.
Click to expand...

**Quite apart from the minor detail that the Bible is not an authority on physics; any more than it is on knitting or equitation. **​

**A great many of the commonly made objections to Sola Scriptura are without any relevance or weight. Now if those who object to it would bother to read (say) Francis Turretin on the subject, or the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Lausanne Declaration - then we might actually get somewhere. Anyone who is up to reading St. Thomas Aquinas, should be **more than capable of reading Turretin - go here for page: monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/turr_scripture.html

Otherwise objectors to SS will show only that they haven’t the foggiest notion of what they are objecting to - & that does no one any good 😦 ##
 
danielsgram said:
Hi Reformed1:

You write: While there isn’t a codified definition of sola scriptura you should probably start with one that mentions that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

I have a couple of questions for you. In your opinion whose interpretation of scripture is inerrant and why?

Donna
Click to expand...
I don’t believe anyones interpretation is infallible.
 
jimmy said:
Was the Church inerrant or infallible in the act of defining the canon of scripture? If so, how can you claim sola scriptura? If not, how can you claim sola scriptura? If the Church was protected in defining the scriptures then it is logical to say that Christ has protected her in other matters. If the Church was not inerrant or infallible in this act then there is no way of knowing what scripture is. The rule of faith is the continuing tradition(scripture is part of that tradition) of the Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a good answer for you on the canon right now. I haven’t really thought about it too much until I started posting here.

The issue of the canon seems to be the most popular way of arguing against sola scriptura so I’ll have to bone up on that.

But, there is always a but, I don’t think one must have an infallible church to have a canon or to have the canon.

I just have a few rambling thoughts so bare with me.

Jesus held the Pharisees and Sadducees accountable to the scriptures and we see in the NT that all scripture is God breathed. We also know that Peter believed Paul’s letters to be scripture.

So we clearly see that…I am rambling.

I guess my point is how did a Jew in the year 75 bc know the Psalms were scripture? Clearly the Jews regarded the Psalms as scripture but they didn’t have an infallible church.

So, there you have it, a brilliant defense of sola scriptura 😃

Seriously though, how did the Jews know what was and wasn’t scripture?
 
Reformed1 said:
I don’t believe anyones interpretation is infallible.
Click to expand...
First you would have scripture dependent upon personal interpretation. But then no is infallible according to you.
Then according to your definition Scripture may be true or untrue. so according to your definition it is an oxymoron. Neither true or untrue. Interesting way to live.
 
tequilamac said:
First you would have scripture dependent upon personal interpretation. But then no is infallible according to you.
Then according to your definition Scripture may be true or untrue. so according to your definition it is an oxymoron. Neither true or untrue. Interesting way to live.
Click to expand...
I think you reading comprehension skills need improving.
 
No Reformer I don’t think I need to improve my reading.

And I wish you wouldn’t post insults then get rid of them quick. Better not to insult in the first place. My reading comprehension skills are just fine, thanks.

I do think you need to learn to make a decision though.

First you say:

While there isn’t a codified definition of sola scriptura you should probably start with one that mentions that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

You then say:

I don’t believe anyones interpretation is infallible.

So basically it is an oxymoron. It is neither true nor untrue, it is just a useless entity. Simply because it is not even useable. Period. It is inerrant, but no one can really interpret it correctly infallibly, therefore it is rather a meaningless thing.
Of course you can carry on about material sufficiency, but that is not the question here.
Your statements render that which you claim to be inerrant simply a non thing, a non decision, a non statement as it is a useless item by the time you are done with it.
As I said, an interesting way to live.
 
Reformed1 said:
While there isn’t a codified definition of sola scriptura you should probably start with one that mentions that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

Saying that scripture is simply the sole rule and norm is sort of setting up a straw man.
Click to expand...
“if it ain’t in the Bible I do not believe it”.

Is that a straw man or is that a clear definition of what Sola Scriptura is?

The list of books that are Scripture is indeed a truth revealed by God and it ain’t in Scripture.

Sola Scriptura falls on it’s own rule.

Ken
 
tequilamac said:
No Reformer I don’t think I need to improve my reading.

And I wish you wouldn’t post insults then get rid of them quick. Better not to insult in the first place. My reading comprehension skills are just fine, thanks.

I do think you need to learn to make a decision though.

First you say:

While there isn’t a codified definition of sola scriptura you should probably start with one that mentions that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

You then say:

I don’t believe anyones interpretation is infallible.

So basically it is an oxymoron. It is neither true nor untrue, it is just a useless entity. Simply because it is not even useable. Period. It is inerrant, but no one can really interpret it correctly infallibly, therefore it is rather a meaningless thing.
Of course you can carry on about material sufficiency, but that is not the question here.
Your statements render that which you claim to be inerrant simply a non thing, a non decision, a non statement as it is a useless item by the time you are done with it.
As I said, an interesting way to live.
Click to expand...
I deleted the post you mention just a few seconds after I submitted it because I recognized it as uncharitable. I don’t believe you have ever had such an ephiphany.

Nonetheless, you say “it” is oxymoronic. What exactly is “it”?
“It” apparently isn’t a good thing because you have labeled “it” as being an oxymoron, useless, not even useable, and a meaningless thing. Whatever “it” is, it sure doesn’t seem you like it too much.

As to your comment on material sufficiency, I don’t know what to say. How is material sufficiency not related to sola scriptura?

You then go on to say that my statements render the scriptures a useless thing.

I have a question for you. How many and which scriptures has your church defined infallibly for you? I think you will find that it’s only a handful of scriptures.

Now since you don’t have an infallible source to guide your study of each and every scripture, what happens? Does this mean that you render the scriptures, at least the ones that aren’t defined infallibly for you a useless thing?
 
kleary said:
“if it ain’t in the Bible I do not believe it”.

Is that a straw man or is that a clear definition of what Sola Scriptura is?

The list of books that are Scripture is indeed a truth revealed by God and it ain’t in Scripture.

Sola Scriptura falls on it’s own rule.

Ken
Click to expand...
Actually it is a straw man.
 
Reformed1 said:
I deleted the post you mention just a few seconds after I submitted it because I recognized it as uncharitable. I don’t believe you have ever had such an ephiphany.
QUOTE]

Well apparently your Epiphany failed. 😃 Would you like to delete your last one? I’ll pretend I didn’t see it. After all I’m not charitable in the least. I simply have poor reading comprehension.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Or maybe I really do have what did you spell it as-Effafannies?
Click to expand...
 
I’m in between views here. I don’t see the necessity of Sola Scriptura (even as a protestant)…however, I find one argument against Sola Scriptura lacking:

Mainly that Paul, writing to Timothy, is speaking of the “Old Testament.” There is a major problem with this. Unless Paul wrote to Timothy after 90AD, then there was no “Old Testament” canon. That was the official formation of the Old Testament by Jews. It is the OT equivalent to the NT formulation in later centuries.

So, if the Jews were operating under the sufficiency of the OT as formulated in the letter to Timothy, then such could equally be applied to the NT Church. In other words, Jews operated under an idea of sufficiency of Scripture (as Paul says) without an “officially declared canon” at that point in time. So too, it would follow that Christians operated on the sufficiency of Scripture WITHOUT a formal declaration of the books contained within.

The only way around this that I can possibly think of is that Jesus’ quoting from books made them “God declared” as canon. However, this isn’t implicit or explicit in my opinion. That’s just a hypothetical.

Any thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top