Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[Janet_S]

That’s a bit of a stretch don’t you think? It’s true a group of men gathered together at V2 but the rest of it is conjecture. You of course believe it to be true but that doesn’t make it so.

What Church do you look to as an “authority” then?

Why bother saying “SS is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth” or “SS is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church” when each individual Christian can decide what the meaning of “Church” is?

If each Christian can define the meaning of “Church” for himself and can pick and choose his own authorities, he is, in fact, denying the authority of the Church.

In the end, it really comes down to this: each believer has the absolute right to private interpretation. That is why SS is unworkable.

 

[believer112]

I still stick to my original question?

IF sola Scriptura is true , why doesn’t the Bible ( any Bible )
contain any mention of it ?

And if the principle of sola scriptura is not mentioned in the
very Book that it claims to arise from, doesn’t that mean that
someone made it up from scratch.

I have heard people defend this principle , but not one has been able to quote any Biblical passage or text, that can prove
sola scriptura is in the Bible.

This I believe is the best proof of sola scriptura being untrue.
If God did not mention it , then it must not be important.

 

[Janet_S]

We disagree about whether or not SS is supported scripturally and you are probably aware that the WCF is not where the doctrine originated from since the reformers saw evidence of SS in the scriptures themselves. I already stated, perhaps you missed it, “5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.”

I saw that, #5, and I mentioned it in my previous post. The problem is, that is not taught in the Bible

any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.

SS is not taught in the Bible. I’m sure 2 Tim 3:16-17 is the best scriptural support you can come up with, but it’s not enough to support JW’s definition.

And without a clear definition of what “Church” is, how in the world would a believer be able to determine which traditions are “God-honoring” or “useful?”

Once again, ultimately the individual Christian can pick and choose his own authorities and traditions, and in the end has the absolute right to private interpretation. That is why SS is unworkable.

 

[believer112]

This brings up the very roots of the problem of sola scriptura.
It was invented to circumvent the teachings of the Catholic
Church ,because it empowers everyone who subcribes to it ,to make up their minds on whether or not the Church teachings are true.

Sola scriptura is bound to question apostolic succession, papal infallibility , and all other traditions in the Catholic church, because if one can decide for oneself , what is true or not true ,based on one’s interpretation of Scripture , then one can use it to justify anything. One sets oneself up as judge and jury on
God’s Word.

There is only one true Church, the one that Jesus Christ, Himself founded. Jesus, Himself gave the authority to the apostles to bind and free anything on Earth. This authority has never been repealed or given to anyone else.

God bless us all

 

[Pwrlftr]

Not just the Church but Scripture itself told us to hold fast the tradition, they have taught us. I’m sure your Bible translation has that verse too. Right?

What are those traditions Manny? If you bother to list any please provide some way of tracing them back either Paul or the church at Thessolonia.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’m not aware of my Church making a definitive statement on this verse. It says what it says. You’re the one reading you beliefs into it.

Janet,

You threw out 2 Thess 2:15, not me. You brought up traditions, not me. If it were me, before I brought up traditions as taught in 2 Thess 2:15 (or anywhere else for that matter) I would make sure I knew what “traditions” were being discussed in the verse.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

The Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. That fact alone should be enough to discredit it. Sola Scriptura is self refuting. If Scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith, then it must be explicitely stated in the Scripture itself.The very fact that it is not expicitly in the bible is a refutation of this man made doctrine. The idea of the “Bible alone” (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church that has authority to interpret Scripture. The Bible even warns against sola scriptura. In the Old Testament God gave authority to his priests to interpret his laws and issue binding teaching based on those interpretations, even with regard to criminal and civil issues- both of which were dealt with by divine revelation (d. Lev. 20:1-27, 25:1-55). In the New Testament, he endowed the Church with infallibility in teaching.

“If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another. … you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God will choose, and, coming to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you. . . and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you; according to the instructions which they give you. . . you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God or the judge, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-12).

“[O]n 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” (Matt. 16:18-19).

“*f he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18:15-18).

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

“If I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame” (1 Cor. 10:8).

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess. 2:13).

“So then, brethren, 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).*

 

[WayneTalbot]

I still stick to my original question?

IF sola Scriptura is true , why doesn’t the Bible ( any Bible )
contain any mention of it ?

This I believe is the best proof of sola scriptura being untrue.
If God did not mention it , then it must not be important.

Without defending SS, I would not go too far down this track if I was you, as much of Catholic and general Christian theology is not mentioned in the Bible, but which is still important.
There is a lot that God has not mentioned, as Scripture itself infers, but I would not use that as the sole basis of rejection.
There are many Catholic traditions which supposedly have their roots in Scripture, but when you study the logic, it is a very long bow indeed.
Certainly, there is much in Christian belief which can be shown to be a valid and reasonable interpretation of Scripture, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, because a complete reading leads one to that understanding.
But what of the Assumption of Mary?
Revelation 12 is generally given as the Scriptural basis, but you could excuse people for finding difficulty with that, particularly as there are so many legends about her. Modern Turkish tour guides point out the house outside Ephesus where she is said to have lived her final days. There is much early Christian history in that region, and the story is plausible, certainly more concrete that the interpretation of Revelation. Biblical archaeology is not conclusive on this issue, but should be considered.
What of praying for intercession through the Saints?
Revelation 5:8 could be interpreted that way, except that the word “saints” in Scripture generally refers to all those who believe in Jesus Christ, both the living and the dead. The OT references of blessing and praising the angels are also used as justification, but in the context of the Psalms, I have difficulty in interpreting this as “praying to”.
What of celibacy of priests?
Paul says it is good if one can remain unmarried (and thus celibate), but 1 Timothy 3:2-5 and 1 Timothy 4:3 clearly show that early Christians saw marriage and family as the preferred background for those wishing to lead the Church.
Why did the Catholic Church change that?
What of the former practice of not eating meat on Friday?
I know that was not a theological belief, more of tradition, an act of worship, but it does seem contrary to NT Scripture which teaches that nothing that enters the mouth is unclean. I sincerely believe that the Church had only the best of intentions when it introduced the practice, and it was not meant to contradict Scripture, but wisdom should have prevailed so that the Catholic practice could not be seen to validate the prohibitions of Islam and Jewish practice, thus strengthening their respective cases.
Where was the wisdom of the Catholic Church when it did that?
What is the Scriptural basis for large church buildings and cathedrals, priests vestments, the hierarchy of the clergy, cardinals sitting at the front, bishops behind, then ordinary priests, and finally the laity? The first and the last? An external observer could easily gain the impression that certain clergy are considered holier than others. A strong Scriptural case can be (and has been) made against clergy-centered practice, and ornate church buildings.
I could go on, but any one example should be sufficient to warn that just because something is not in the Bible is not a good reason to reject it outright.
But Scripture should be used as the basis, to see whether any particular theology, practice, tradition, or belief, is either contrary to or in conformity with, the teachings of Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to test all things, and to my mind, that includes the teachings of all churches, ever mindful of the Seven Churches in Revelation.
I too am saddened that there is so much division among Christ’s followers, and now well into the autumn of my life, I am no closer to understanding just how the Holy Spirit works when so many sincere, devout Christians have so many different answers. But in all humility, believe that the Word of God is written in our hearts, and when a Church, any Church, espouses doctrines and practices which either have doubtful Scriptural support, or can clearly be shown to be contrary to Scripture, in prayer I lay my doubts at the foot of the Cross and ask God’s forgiveness if I have it wrong, but confident that He knows what is truly in my heart, He alone can judge my sincerity.
Thus I give a defence, not only for the hope that is in me (1 Peter 3:15), but also for my beliefs, with meekness, and most particularly, fear.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What are those traditions Manny? If you bother to list any please provide some way of tracing them back either Paul or the church at Thessolonia.

The Trinity, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, that sinlessness of Mary, infant baptism, etc. These are taught by the ECF, because I recall the words of John, that there nothing things that Jesus did not written.

Of course, these were not defined at the time of the Apostle, but they were properly understand.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Trinity, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, that sinlessness of Mary, infant baptism, etc. These are taught by the ECF, because I recall the words of John, that there nothing things that Jesus did not written.

Of course, these were not defined at the time of the Apostle, but they were properly understand.

Manny,

I agree w/ you that not everything Jesus did is written about in the scriptures but that what was written down for us was done so that we may believe.

Now, as we know, there are some things your church clings to as dogma that don’t appear in the writings of the ECF’s until several centuries after the last apostle.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

I agree w/ you that not everything Jesus did is written about in the scriptures but that what was written down for us was done so that we may believe.

Now, as we know, there are some things your church clings to as dogma that don’t appear in the writings of the ECF’s until several centuries after the last apostle.

The Trinity was not taught in the Bible. It derives from one of the Writings of the ECF.

I like to make the following points. I found while reading Mark Shea’s concerning Tradition:

To begin answering the question, we should begin with ordinary human experience and first ask, what is tradition? Essentially, tradition is a thing handed down from one generation to the next. This is precisely the meaning of the biblical word for tradition: paradosis. Further, we make distinctions between large “T” and small “t” traditions even in secular and folk culture. Small “t” traditions express something of a culture (like turkey at Thanksgiving), yet can be put aside without doing irreparable damage to that heritage (though the deprivation would sting — as every soldier who has had to endure a Thanksgiving turkey loaf with freeze-dried mashed potatoes in a mess tent will tell you). Some small “t” traditions (like toasting the bride and groom) are very ancient and widely diffused. Some (like Fourth of July fireworks) are fairly new and may be confined to only one culture. Some have religious significance (like Advent candles), some are just ingrained customs (like birthday candles). Human culture is immersed in an ocean of such traditions ranging from throwing wedding rice to saluting the flag to celebrating bachelor parties to gathering around the water cooler on Monday mornings. And, as such, nobody fears this profoundly human thing.

However, tradition is more than the mere cultural window dressing of small “t” traditions. It isn’t just little customs. It is also a way of being, thinking and seeing which powerfully (and often unconsciously) influences our lives and even our relationship with God. Americans, for example, have a long-standing Tradition of self-governance and a curious distrust of kings and princes which harks back to the Magna Carta and colors our outlook far more deeply than the mere tradition of Fourth of July fireworks. Compared to the small “t” tradition of sparklers, the Tradition of Liberty is Tradition with a capital “T” in the American psyche. It’s the secret fuel of everything from the American Revolution to the Civil War to the Vietnam protests. Its powerful grip can hardly be overestimated, precisely because such a grip is largely unconscious. That’s why our soldier mentioned above can endure the sting of turkey loaf for Thanksgiving, but could only detest a Thanksgiving without representative government or freedom of speech.

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

Now this distinction between small “t” and large “T” tradition holds true in the realm of the sacred as well, according to Catholic teaching. That is, there are aspects of Christian life which are principally handed on to us, not so much through Scripture as through tradition. Some of this tradition, says the Church, is small “t” stuff: candles, favorite songs, styles of prayer, popular forms of devotion, beloved books, treasured old rituals like Christmas caroling, foods like St. Basil’s bread or Easter eggs, legends like the Little Drummer Boy and a billion other such adornments to the life of faith. All these are expressions of ordinary human culture. Yet, when push comes to shove, none of these small “t” traditions, vital and living though they are, are essential to the Faith. Rather than the Little Drummer Boy, mom and dad could just as easily have told us the story of the Other Wise Man and not have maimed the Faith thereby.

But if they neglected to tell us that Jesus Christ is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, Not Made, mom and dad would have failed to hand down not a tradition, but Tradition. For as the Church makes very clear, Sacred Tradition (as distinct from the human traditions noted above) can be neglected only at the cost of radically injuring the Christian Faith. And that’s because, Catholics insist, Sacred Tradition (both written and unwritten) comes neither from human creativity nor from legend, but from the Apostles themselves. It therefore must not be altered by addition or subtraction in any way. For the difference between tradition and Tradition is the difference between the customs of man and the revelation of God.

Now at this point, we begin to confront a very touchy problem. For as soon as we point this out, Catholics appear to be adding novel doctrines to the Faith in broad daylight claiming “They’ve been there all along” (as, for example, the nineteenth and twentieth century definitions of the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and the Assumption of Mary).

In response, the baffled Evangelical recoils from his growing interest in Sacred Tradition as from an apple in the hand of Eve. “Waitaminnit!” he cries, “What’s going on here? Is this some kind of trick? If these doctrines have been there all along, then where the heck is the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Scripture and why did it not become a teaching of the Church until 1854!?”

When Catholics reply, “this truth and teaching is contained in written books and in the unwritten traditions that the Apostles received from Christ Himself or that were handed on, as it were from hand to hand, from the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so have come down to us,” (Council of Trent, Decree on Sacred Scripture and Tradition: Denziger 783 [1501]) this doesn’t do much to allay the Protestant suspicion. For such answers sound a lot like, “Okay, so the Immaculate Conception isn’t in Scripture. It’s in, uh. . . Tradition! Yeah! That’s the ticket! Tradition!”

And so, many still labor underthe vague misperception that Catholics think Tradition is a separate, secret and parallel revelation transmitted from bishop to bishop at the Secret Tradition-Passing-On Ceremony all bishops go through in the dark chamber of Initiation in the Inner Mysteries beneath the Vatican (“Psst! Mary is Immaculate, Ever-Virgin and Assumed into Heaven, pass it on!”) and leaked to the Church when Rome feels the time is right to tell the ordinary guy in the pew.

Here is the full article: envoymagazine.com/backissues/3.3/story2.html

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Trinity was not taught in the Bible. It derives from one of the Writings of the ECF.

Manny,

You can stop in the book store of most seminaries and you will find the scholarly works on the trinity based on scripture alone so it is completely false to say, as you did, that “The Trinity was not taught in the Bible. It derives from one of the Writings of the ECF.”

 

[WayneTalbot]

The post on “Traditions” is very useful, and much of the content can guide us in our own thoughts.
However, I think it unfortunate that the author of the referenced article saw fit to use the derisory tone that he did: his scholarship would be more acceptable if he was more dispassionate.
So often, people point to the extremes of contrary views to prove their own point, when the extremes are not the majority opinion, and it is doubtful whether they even exist in the form expressed.
For example, the author states, "Instead, they imagine that doctrine is arrived at by Catholics sitting down with a Bible and saying, “Let’s see. What’s the most tortured and extreme reading we can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let’s say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!”
This type of hypothetical is not helpful, and in my experience, not likey to be true. It is certainly not representative of the scholarly works of many sincere critics of Catholic doctrine.
The author also uses questionable logic to prove his point, and while I applaud his attempts to clarify the concept of tradition and the truths drawn therefrom, he needs to avoid using double edged arguments.
The statement, “In this context, we discover not explicit, but implicit testimony to the doctrine, while those verses which appear to speak of Jesus’ siblings or Mary’s relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ can easily be understood in a way compatible with her perpetual virginity”, he is working from a presupposition (perpetual virginity) and finding interpretations that are consistent with that belief.
Exactly the same style of argument can be used to demonstrate the validity of alternate views, and thus the argument style carries little weight.
I am ever aware of the Scriptural admonitions against secular wisdom, but sometimes, just sometimes, the simplest reading of Scripture may give the more accurate interpretation.
Jesus taught in parables so that only the faithful would understand, but it is also clear in the context when He was doing so. Simple narrations of events should, I believe, be seen as just that.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet,

You threw out 2 Thess 2:15, not me. You brought up traditions, not me. If it were me, before I brought up traditions as taught in 2 Thess 2:15 (or anywhere else for that matter) I would make sure I knew what “traditions” were being discussed in the verse.

Maybe you forgot, but you were the first one to bring up traditions in this post where you were defining SS:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3031505&postcount=62

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS
5. **All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture **(Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures

.
I mentioned 2 Thessalonians because it contradicts your claim (or JW’s claim) above. Paul doesn’t distinguish between oral and written traditions; he doesn’t claim Scripture is a higher authority.

I’ve participated in several threads about Tradition, but I didn’t think that was the topic of this thread. But, since you seem to be interested, and since I have written many posts already about Tradition, here are some relevant answers from other threads:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2601854&postcount=5

And this thread has discussion of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and SS:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2830583&postcount=10

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2839194&postcount=23

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2845724&postcount=40

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2849646&postcount=53

 

[Janet_S]

Manny,

You can stop in the book store of most seminaries and you will find the scholarly works on the trinity based on scripture alone so it is completely false to say, as you did, that “The Trinity was not taught in the Bible. It derives from one of the Writings of the ECF.”

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, so I am surprised that most sola Scripturists accept this doctrine. I’m glad most of them do, though, because it is true.

Still, it’s not unambiguously spelled out in the pages of Scripture.

I’ve had the opportunity to discuss this with some other non-Catholics (Christians?) who are sola Scripturists and who don’t accept the Trinity. One guy I discussed this with was a Christadelphian. Some other religions who deny the doctrine of the Trinity are oneness Pentecostals, LDS, and JW’s. Try to convince any of these people of the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible. It’s not an easy task.

 

[Janet_S]

The post on “Traditions” is very useful, and much of the content can guide us in our own thoughts.

Mark Shea has some other good books.

By What Authority?

amazon.com/What-Authority-Evangelical-Discovers-Tradition/dp/0879738510/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196549264&sr=1-2

And Making Senses out of Scripture
amazon.com/Making-Senses-Out-Scripture-Christians/dp/0964261065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196549433&sr=1-1

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

You can stop in the book store of most seminaries and you will find the scholarly works on the trinity based on scripture alone so it is completely false to say, as you did, that “The Trinity was not taught in the Bible. It derives from one of the Writings of the ECF.”

The belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One is there but you won’t find the term Trinity. That didn’t came about or was official taught until the Church in the Council of Nicea proclaim it to be infallible about Trinity. In that Council the Trinity and the concept of hypostatic union came about. The Bible didn’t make it binding. The Bible didn’t declare the Trinity as the acceptable norm of belief. It was the Church.

Yes, I agree that Bible does imply the concept of One God, three Divine Persons. but you rarely read Divine Persons or hypostatic union, or the term, Light from Light, True God from True God. Of course the reasoning behind the Trinity was a way to describe the Christian belief of a One God.

Trinity derive from the word Trinitas in which Theophilus of used it. However, the Early Church Father who first was Tertullian. He used it to explain the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as One essence not as in Persons.

The basis for the Trinity is deep in Scripture. St. Gregory Nazianzen summarized the role of the Trinity in the following:
Gregory Nazianzen:

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further.

 

[jcrichton]

Sola scriptura does not mean that one must have their own copy of the scriptures it simply states that “The Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.”

***Hi, Pwlftr!

On face value this sounds exceptionally complete: Scriptures alone binds all.

The problem is that when I determine what the Holy Scriptures means by reading the Bible I may come away with a totally different understanding than yours.

i.e.: there’s a group that professes to be Christian and they use the Holy Scriptures to indoctrinate others who reject Christ as Lord and Savior and God! Though they read the Holy Scriptures, they have determined that they alone possess the truth as revealed to their “prophet” founder. Conversely, another group relies on the Holy Scriptures to authenticate their existence as they point to Jesus having another group of sheep (believers) which He will bring unto the fold.

These two are major players in the world’s religions… sadly, they are not the only ones who have determined, from Scriptures, that they are the ligitimate church of Christ. Sola Scriptura has been the resounding “manifest destiny” of 30,000± denominations world-wide; it seems that the Holy Spirit is providing the world with chaos instead of order as “Christians” continue to divide and subdivide at such alarming rate that both atheists and non-Christians point to this great fault–I know of at least one group that uses the discrepancy of the numerous Bible versions that Christians use to both proselytize and demean Christianity.

Sola Scriptura may have been well intended but I doubt that the concept creator intended it to birth myriads of divisive “churches” of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Mannyfit75]

I also like to add that there people in the poor countries who can’t read, and you expect them to be converted by merely reading a book? You have to preach them to orally to preach…