Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[Pwrlftr]

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…

Manny,

Where did I deny that?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

Where did I deny that?

I didn’t say you did. I’m just saying that not all matters of faith and morality cannot be explicitly taught in Scripture. The Word of God is both founded in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and divinely inspired Body of Believers, (The Church) to intepret them. We call this the Magisterial Teaching.

 

[Romulus]

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.

Interesting post Janet… I have plans on researching a proof of the Trinity by using the idea of an EQUIVALENCE RELATION. We’ll see how it goes.

By the way, I have a similar thread in regards to the illogicalness of SOLA SCRIPTURA forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2903922&postcount=39

peace be with you

 

[WayneTalbot]

I have started researching “Tradition” and what can be learned. This requires reading the early Church Fathers and the writings of the disciples that followed the Apostles, Clement for example. The Church Fathers can be hard work - I am currently working my way through St Augustine’s “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” and “City of God”.
It seems to me that these early writings should reveal two things, (1) confirmation of Scripture, and (2) issues that were taught by Jesus, confirmed by the Apostles, but not documented in canonical Scripture.
I would not expect there to be issues that were not taught by Jesus, else how could we know they were true.
In reference to Sola Scriptura, I completely agree that Tradition complements Scripture, but it should not contradict it.
Can anyone point to any reference works that describe theology learned from Tradition texts, but not in the canon, and what those Tradition texts are?
Many thanks.

 

[believer112]

I’ve read the above postings and counter-claims ,but some ignore a
the most basic arguments against sola scriptura.

1 . Jesus Christ came only ONCE and he established His Church only ONCE. The Catholic Church can trace its origins back to when Jesus Christ walked the earth. The authority to bind and free anything was only given ONCE.

1. If God wanted sola scriptura practiced , he would have mentioned it in the Bible in some way ,shape or form .
2. sola scriptura only came into being in the the 16th century , as a way to argue against the authority of the ONE established
   Christian Church.

Sola scriptura is a man-made principle. IT is a third option.
Before it existed , there were only two options , to believe or not to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Sola scriptura
in essence says , I will believe,but …

The end result of sola scriptura is its divisive influence on
the Christian faith. There are 30,000 plus protestant churches , sects, and sub-sects . If the TRUTH is one there should be only ONE Church.

]

 

[annem]

Proof:

Two of the most important moral issues now are abortion and divorce.

Every single Protestant in every single church has a different interpretation of these issues, all based on what the Holy Spirit is telling him.

So does the Holy Spirit not care about these important issues? Is that why all Protestants believe different things about them?

On the other hand, every Catholic in the world is obliged by his religion to believe that abortion and remarriage after divorce are wrong.

God bless, Anne

 

[WayneTalbot]

Proof:

Two of the most important moral issues now are abortion and divorce.

Every single Protestant in every single church has a different interpretation of these issues, all based on what the Holy Spirit is telling him.

So does the Holy Spirit not care about these important issues? Is that why all Protestants believe different things about them?

On the other hand, every Catholic in the world is obliged by his religion to believe that abortion and remarriage after divorce are wrong.

God bless, Anne

Dear Anne,
I commend your devotion, but understand that your message lacks logic and is not convincing.
You make a very unfounded statement in “every single Protestant in every single church has a different interpretation on these issues, based on what the Holy Spirit is telling him”.
I personally know this to be untrue, many Protestants have exactly the same interpretation, and many people do not rely on the Holy Spirit at all - some on their pastor, some on their friends, some on contemporary social practice.
Overstating your case never makes for a good argument.
You state that Catholics are “obliged” to believe, but you must be aware that being obliged to believe is not the same as believing.
Many Catholics still follow their conscience on such matters, irrespective of the teachings of the Church.
I am not saying that is the right thing to do, simply that your explanation carries no weight because you contrast, on the one hand, “beliefs” of Protestants, and on the other hand, “obligations” of Catholics.
A bit like comparing apples and oranges really.
The other issue you may consider is the degree to which the Catholic Church has become legalistic, preferring legal definition over ethics and morality, and God’s law written on our hearts.
For example, there was a time when children born outside of marriage were considered by the Church to be illegitimate - but this has been redefined (Canon 1130-1133) to say that children born at least 180 days after the celebration of the marriage or within 300 days from the date when conjugal life was terminated are now considered legitimate.
While Scripture gives only one reason for divorce, infidelity, the Church has introduced the legal concept of annulment, as if morally annulment is different to divorce.
Canon 1142 says that the Pope can annul an unconsumated marriage, an issue never even suggested in Scripture. In effect, the Church is saying that if you have sex outside marriage, that’s cause for separation (divorce) but if you do not have sex in marriage, that is also cause for separation (annulment).In reality, the cause of much heartbreak for a loving partner who simply has psychological issues with physical relations.
In condemning Protestants, at least try to remain sober in your criticism, and try to understand that the Reformation was a response to excesses by the Holy Roman Empire, now admitted by the Church, in effect, admitting that they have not always been the repository of truth, at least in their practice.
If past Popes have acted contrary to the now stated beliefs of the Church, repeatedly and over a long period of time, if past Popes have both initiated and condoned practices for which more recent Popes have seen fit to apologise, it should not be beyond your understanding why Protestants have difficulty with the Primacy of Rome.
That some people reject the legalism of the Church and have chosen to look directly to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit for guidance is only to be expected, and they can hardly be condemned if they take to heart the words in Acts 4:12, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”.
May God’s grace be with you, living in peace with fellow Christians, grateful for our unity in Christ.

 

[annem]

many Protestants have exactly the same interpretation

Doesn’t the fact that you can say “many” Protestants have the same '“interpretation” of what is moral bother you? Isn’t there any solid truth? Is morality flexible, and open to interpretation? Is abortion right or wrong? Does morality change over the centuries? In the 1930s every Protestant church changed its mind about the moral rightness of contraception.

The problem with your complaint about the church being 'legalistic" goes to the very heart of this problem, surely.

God bless you, Anne

 

[Nick_Jones]

1. Since sola scriptura is not taught in scripture and all Christians agree that sola scriptura is fundamental, then by the definition of sola scriptura, sola scriptura must be (c) fundamental, but not true.

QED

Why do you reject SS, and what exactly do you propose as an alternative to it?

 

[believer112]

An annulment is not a divorce , and vice -versa. An annulment
simply stated nullifies the Sacrament of matrimony .
Comparing an annulment to a divorce is comparing apples and oranges.
The basis of an annulment is in natural law. The annulment restores both parties to their previous state before the sacrament was performed . The most common reasons for granting a petition for annulment are bigamy , mental or physical duress exerted to force someone into a wedding, and the lack of understanding about the sacrament ( usually invoked when the parties were married young ). All Catholic dioceses have a council
enpannelled to hear petitions for annulment. The Pope at any time can change or add to the valid grounds for an annulment.

The main difference is that in divorce ,all marriages can be dissolved , but an annulment is not automatic . If the panel decides to reject the petition , in the eyes of the Church ,the
petitioner(s) are still in a valid sacramental marriage and therefore cannot sacramentally marry again.

This points out another problem with sola scriptura. The
principle cannot be applied to everything , especially items that are not mentioned in the Bible.

For instance , duress is not mentioned by the Bible as a valid grounds for an annulment, but , it is obvious that any marriage
that results is not a valid sacramental marriage . Since this situation is not mentioned in The Bible , and therefore
sola scriptura cannot be applied to it , does this mean that the protestant churches will condone forcible marriages.

As for abortion and contraception, the Catholic Church has stood firm on both these subjects. Abortion has evolved from just a surgical procedure . There are now " morning -after " pills and other medical advances . These also are not mentioned in the Bible and sola scriptura cannot be used to test these items because they do not appear in the Bible ,

God bless us all

 

[Nick_Jones]

“Proof that sola scriptura is not true”

Wouldn’t be much simpler to note that while there were Christians in the 1st century there wasn’t a Bible until the 4th?

Even the earliest component parts of the NT were written down mid to late 1st century. So what did those first Christian do? It couldn’t have been Bible study.

The lack of NT books doesn’t doesn’t mean no scripture existed. The early church had the OT. So I really don’t see how this refutes SS.

 

[believer112]

The lack of NT books doesn’t doesn’t mean no scripture existed. The early church had the OT. So I really don’t see how this refutes SS.

Yes , it does.
If no Scripture of the New Testament existed , Then how can you
apply sola scriptura to something that did not exist.

Also , if you just have the Old Testament , then Jesus Christ’s
redemptive sacrifice never happened, because everything wriiten about it is on the New Testament.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Yes, it does.
If no Scripture of the New Testament existed , Then how can you
apply sola scriptura to something that did not exist.

Also , if you just have the Old Testament , then Jesus Christ’s
redemptive sacrifice never happened, because everything wriiten about it is on the New Testament.

In written form, no. Very little, if any of the NT was available in written form at that time. Most people in the early church heard the gospel by oral communication. Given that, perhaps you can explain the significance of this verse:

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[believer112]

That is a commendation by Paul for the Jews of Berea , who accepted the Good News with open hearts…and did not persecute
the apostles, like the Jews of Thessalonica did.
the scripture referred to is the Old Testament , and Paul would have quoted passages about the coming of the Messiah .
Note , the passage says they examined scripture to verify if what Paul said was true. It does not say anything else …

 

[Romulus]

The lack of NT books doesn’t doesn’t mean no scripture existed. The early church had the OT. So I really don’t see how this refutes SS.

I’ve refuted SS in another thread using a syllogism and 2nd Timothy…so I’ll repost here since its a similar thread…

Double check me everyone…Here is a java program to help roninabox.com/venndiagram.html

Here is the syllogism and I’ll go ahead and add the quantifier “Some”:

Disamis

Major Premise: Some M is P
Minor Premise: All M is S
Conclusion: Some S is P

Let Middle term = God breathed things
Let Predicate = sufficient
Let Subject = Scripture

Major Premise: Some God breathed things are sufficient
Minor Premise: All God breathed things are Scripture
Conclusion: Some Scripture is sufficient

We all agree that both premises are false, therefore conclusion is false. So the negation is true by the Law of Non-Contradiction…the Negation of the conclusion translates to, “For all Scripture is insufficient”

Here is yet another valid syllogism:

Disamis

Major Premise: Some M is P
Minor Premise: All M is S
Conclusion: Some S is P

Now,
Let middle term = Scripture
Let Predicate = sufficient
Let Subject = God breathed things

Major Premise: Some Scripture is sufficient
Minor Premise: All Scripture are God breathed things
Conclusion: Some God breathed things are sufficient

We all agree that the minor premise is TRUE, it is explicit in 2nd Tim…the major we proved to be false using the first Disamis. So the conclusion is FALSE…again, by the Law of Non-Contradiction, the negation is TRUE, meaning “All God breathed things are insufficient” is TRUE.

Interesting huh… Let me know what you all think.

peace be with you

 

[WayneTalbot]

I’ve refuted SS in another thread using a syllogism and 2nd Timothy…so I’ll repost here since its a similar thread…
We all agree that the minor premise is TRUE, it is explicit in 2nd Tim…the major we proved to be false using the first Disamis. So the conclusion is FALSE…again, by the Law of Non-Contradiction, the negation is TRUE, meaning “All God breathed things are insufficient” is TRUE.

Interesting huh… Let me know what you all think.

peace be with you

While I would not disagree with your proof as described, I do disagree with the definition of Sola Scriptura that is the basis of your syllogism. As an aside, I suspect that you could use the same technique to disprove the Tradition + Magisterium + Scripture argument as well, the difficulty would be agreeing the propositions that are to be the basis.
Some points I would make on this thread, without arguing the truth of Sola Scriptura one way or another.
Firstly, Sola Scriptura does NOT completely deny Tradition. SS accepts Tradition provided that it does not contradict Scripture, a not unreasonable position. SS does question Tradition that does not have a basis in Scripture, and questions the origin of any such theology. If the proponents of such theology are not able to show its provenance, they should rightly be questioned, irrespective of their position.
It is not enough to claim that the origins were oral: all Scripture was originally oral. Scripture does tell us that not all of Jesus’ work is recorded; some would claim that there was thus teachings of Jesus given to the Apostles that were not subsequently recorded, others suggest that the works / words not recorded were simply repetitions and thus not worth recording in an age when writing was laborious.
You can hold to either belief, but to claim which is true would require further evidence.
I am attempting to research which tenets of faith and interpretations belong in the Tradition category rather than the Scripture category, in the belief that at some point, such things must have been written down. For them to have been passed orally from Jesus to the Apostles to disciples, I think it reasonable to assume that the purely oral process must have ceased sometime in the 3rd or 4th century; I don’t know that to be true, it just seems a reasonable assumption given the efforts within the Church to formalise its teachings during that period. It would seem most odd that an oral tradition would have continued beyond the formalisation of the canon.
So far, I have been unable to identify any interpretations or tenets of faith arising in that period that do not have their origins in Scripture. I am not saying that there are not any, simply that my limited research, still in progress, has yet to uncover any.
If anyone does know of any, I would be pleased to be so informed.
If, and only if, there are not any interpretations or tenets of faith to be found arising in the first three centuries after the death of Christ, one could conclude that Tradition, as a pillar of faith independent of Scripture, can not represent oral transmissions of faith originating with Jesus or the Apostles.
My final point is in the next post, and relates to the nature and definition of Scripture itself.
… continued.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Continuing …… on the nature and definition of Scripture.

As noted by others, it would seem that some posters are taking too narrow a view of Sacred Scripture.
Jesus presents the word of Scripture as the word of the eternal Father (John 5:33-41), as the word of a writer inspired by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 22:43), and as the word of God (Matthew 19:4-5; 22:31). I don’t think it unreasonable to view Sacred Scripture as both the oral and written, though obviously the word “scripture” in its literal sense refers to documents.
When the Apostles and Disciples were spreading the teachings of Jesus, could not these teachings be considered “scripture” though they were yet to be written down?
When Jesus Himself was teaching, were His words not Scripture simply because no-one had yet transcribed them?
Does Sacred Scripture only become so when it is written?
You may take that view, but I would not, just as I would not say that the Bible did not exist until the canon as we know it today was confirmed and promulgated.
While not advocating Sola Scriptura, my understanding from studying the subject is that early proponents were less concerned with the method of delivery, but more with the content, and it is only the passage of time that now sees it as the “written” word. They believed that Jesus was dictating Scripture, that the Apostles were conveying scripture orally, and that it was progressively committed to paper. Sola Scriptura relates to content, not to the documents themselves.
When Paul was arguing from Scripture, he was arguing from both the OT, prophesying the Messiah, and from the NT, as yet unwritten, but as revealed by God (Jesus) Himself. When Peter preached, he was preaching the gospel direct from The Word Himself, part of NT scripture. When Paul wrote his epistles, the truth of what he wrote, in effect Scripture, existed before he wrote it.

In understanding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, whether we agree with it or not, I think we should consider Sacred Scripture to exist prior to its written form: that is certainly the view of the Reformists.

In an earlier post, the author quoted the essay itself found here www.scborromeo.org/papers/solascri.PDF.

The essay seems to confuse the Bible and Scripture: the Bible is the canon of Scripture, not Scripture itself. When the author states “this viewpoint ignores the evidence that the Bible, as we now have it, did not exist for over three hundred years. The Bible was not compiled into one book until the end of the 4th century”, he/she is both right and wrong. Certainly the canon was not confirmed until then, but the Scripture did exist, and I’ll assume that the words “compiled into one book” is metaphorical as books as we know them did not yet exist.

The author goes on to question “If Sacred Scripture is the only source …… how was the faith transmitted from the death of the last Apostle until the canon was formulated”. Quite simply, it was transmitted in exactly the same way as it had during the life of the Apostles, via disciples, mostly orally, and using the various letters (Epistles) written by both the Apostles and Disciples. While the Gospels were written during the period 50 – 95 AD, or thereabouts, written copies were not generally available: most dissemination of Scripture was oral.

Paul’s debate with the Jews as recorded in Acts 17 is claimed as evidence, proof even, that Sola Scriptura is invalid. It may, but I find the author’s argument unconvincing because it takes too narrow a view of the nature of Scripture, as I have tried to show.

I believe that we all acknowledge that understanding the Gospels and Epistles needs to be in the context of the times when they were written: the same holds true for understanding the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Janet_S]

Would it be possible to be a sola Scripturist without also being a scholar in the ancient languages (Greek and Hebrew)? Or without being a scholar in ancient history and philosophy? Did Jesus intend to spread the Gospel only to scholars? Only to those with adequate intellect and ample time to devote to intensive Scriptural studies?

If one is not a scholar of languages, history, and philosophy then he can’t fully understand the Scriptures. Because as you (Wayne) admit, in order to understand Scripture, one must understand the context of the time and the original language in which they were written.

Of course, one could always consult expert opinion to help him with context. For example one could consult with a Biblical scholar, a lexicon, or a concordance. But now it’s not really sola Scriptura anymore. And when you think about it, what’s the difference between a Protestant consulting with a Biblical scholar and a Catholic consulting with the Pope? In a way, it is the Biblical scholars in Protestantism who are acting as bishops or the Pope.

Sola Scriptura is just not practical. I can’t imagine that Jesus expected for all of us to have the time and intellect to study Greek, Hebrew, and ancient history so we could discern the proper interpretation of Scripture. Protestants claim understanding Scripture is easy, but they know it’s not. If it were that easy, we wouldn’t have the thousands of denominations we have today, all disagreeing on key doctrines.

 

[Romulus]

While I would not disagree with your proof as described, I do disagree with the definition of Sola Scriptura that is the basis of your syllogism.

What is the definition of SS that you interpreting from my reply?

As an aside, I suspect that you could use the same technique to disprove the Tradition + Magisterium + Scripture argument as well, the difficulty would be agreeing the propositions that are to be the basis.

You mean the premises…I agree…and these TRUE/FALSE propositions you mentioned will come from scripture…so scripture proves/disproves the tripod of TRADITION and MAGISTARIUM and SCRIPTURE. Is it possible? You want to start another thread “Proof that the tripod is not true or true”? Let us all find out…wanna help with some scriptures while I set up the “deductive reasoning” a.k.a syllogism??

Firstly, Sola Scriptura does NOT completely deny Tradition. SS accepts Tradition provided that it does not contradict Scripture

But how would anyone know if a Tradition really contradicts Scripture if someone doesn’t use “deductive reasoning”? If we all agree on the Truthness of the premises in the syllogism I posted, then I’ve shown everyone that SS is not in Scripture, therefore it is self-refuting. Insufficient refutes the “sola” part…does it not? Correct me if i’ve missed something.

thanks for the feedback

peace be with you

 

[WayneTalbot]

If we all agree on the Truthness of the premises in the syllogism I posted, then I’ve shown everyone that SS is not in Scripture, therefore it is self-refuting. Insufficient refutes the “sola” part…does it not? Correct me if i’ve missed something.

thanks for the feedback

peace be with you

Let’s hope that I am understanding you correctly and thus not speaking at cross-purposes.
I agree: Scripture does not state or claim that every truth / doctrine / tenet of belief is contained within Sacred Scripture.
But then, neither does Sola Scriptura make that claim.
So on what point is it self-refuting?
Again, it would appear that some are taking too narrow a view of what SS means, it is not a claim that everything is in Sacred Scripture. In some texts, it is overstated, much as any argument tends to get overstated when the proceedings get overheated.
Essentially, SS got started to refute practices and beliefs that were seen to be contrary to Scripture, or the provenance of which could not be demonstrated.
So it almost became a catch-cry: “If it ain’t in Scripture it ain’t true”, and then like so many theories, grew beyond that which could be substantiated on the facts.
You may recall that there were some odious practices at the time, like selling indulgences to pay for the Vatican. I doubt that anyone today would say that was a good thing.
Rome also resisted translating the Bible beyond Latin, opposing the release of Scripture to the general congregation, insisting that Rome alone could convey its contents. You may argue that the Reformation itself proves the wisdom of that practice, you would certainly have a point, but given the demonstrable corruption of the time, Rome’s credibility looked a little shakey.
Understand Sola Scriptura was more about trying to get Rome back on track at a time when it was not as reputable as it should have been. A simple reading of the history of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly a secular rendering as opposed to the official Catholic version, would disturb most people. Even allowing for the bias of individual historians, there is enough there to help you understand why so many thought the Reformation necessary.
If you take the more general understanding of Sola Scriptura, that theology must not contradict the Canon of Scripture, and that any belief outside Scripture must have a demonstrable and credible provenance, I don’t see that as unreasonable.
To be sure, some adhere to the more narrow definition.
Just like some Protestants claim that Catholics cling to narrow definitions, when in truth some do and some don’t. There is a thread regarding “faith and works” which amply demonstrates this point.
God’s grace be with you.