Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[WayneTalbot]

Would it be possible to be a sola Scripturist without also being a scholar in the ancient languages (Greek and Hebrew)?

I am not sure that I follow your line of thinking.
You begin by asking, “Did Jesus intend to spread the Gospel only to scholars?”, then end with the claim that understanding Scripture is not easy, thus suggesting that the answer to your first question is “yes, He did intend it only for scholars”.
I think we agree that He did not.
There are a number of issues here.
Those to whom Jesus preached did not need to be scholars of language or culture, it was their own, they understood it because they grew up with it. It is only later in history that we of different language and culture need to be sensitive to it. So the thrust of your first paragraph perhaps needs to be restated.
“If one is not a scholar … he can’t fully understand the Scriptures”. I agree with you, but maybe we would disagree as to the import of the word “fully”. Jesus told us that we would not fully understand, and I would not disagree with Him, but he was not talking about scholarship as we know. The difficulty I have with your statement, true as it is, is that each and every one of us, including the Pope, may have a different perspective of what “fully” means in this context. If we could constrain the statement to specific issues of theology, it may have some value, but as a generality, it is not helpful.
“For example one could consult with a Biblical scholar, a lexicon, or a concordance. But now it’s not really sola Scriptura anymore”. As I have explained elsewhere, this takes too narrow a meaning of SS, one that is certainly held to by some, but in my experience and study, not the more common meaning of the term.
“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?”. Well none really, so what is your point? Your definition of the term, Sola Scriptura, notwithstanding, you also seem to be accepting the validity of Protestant scholarship, equating it with the authority of the bishops and Pope, with which I would agree, but with reservations as to the motives of some Protestant interpretations.
“Sola Scriptura is just not practical”: I would agree if SS referred simply to the written text per se, but it does not. It refers to the content and meaning within the broader definitions I have given. Using what I understand your definition to be, would your above stated arguments against Sola Sciptura be valid shortly after the time of Jesus and the Apostles, when the Gospels and Epistles were first written?
It would be hard to make that case.
I would encourage you to think of SS in those terms, not seeing it as a latter day philosophy, invalidated by the separation of language, culture, and history, but as an attempt to centre belief on what was originally taught by Jesus, His Apostles, and the early Disciples. It may be mis-stated, I agree, but it has suffered with the passage of time just as Scripture itself has.
Put yourself in the shoes of the Reformists, people with a genuine love of Jesus Christ and His Church, and frustrated by a Papal authority that wandered off into some dubious practices, with the pain of the Inquisition still fresh in their memories, and love not exactly abounding from the Bishops in Rome.
What would your reactions have been?
Would you have unquestioningly followed all that Rome put before you?
If you had not known Scripture, because it was not available to you, how could you know that the authority of Rome had become corrupt in certain respects?
Think kindly of the Reformists, and their attempt with Sola Scriptura to steer the Church back on track. They may not have got it completely right, but they were fighting a difficult fight.
Had the Reformation not occurred, would Rome have put itself right? Jesus declared that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it”, maybe, just maybe, He had a hand in the Reformation at a time when Rome had strayed.
I know such thoughts would send shudders through some, but ask yourself, in the light of history, where was Rome going, and where would it be today if it had continued on the same path without a reformation of some kind?
Often, the most loyal followers are those who are prepared to question.

 

[Contarini]

1. All Christians agree that sola scriptura is fundamental. Catholics believe that it is fundamental and false; Protestants believe that it is fundamental and true.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument. Not all Protestants believe this.

• Tradition, which may be written or oral, is valued in scripture (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6). Wherever corrupt tradition is denounced, it is qualified as “traditions of man” or “your traditions” (Colossians 2:8, Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:8-13)

Exactly. The question at issue is not one of principle, but one of fact. If there is divine revelation outside the 66 (mostly) undisputed books of Scripture, then where is it? The burden of proof is always on those making a claim of authority. So since Christians agree on the 66 books, any claims of authority beyond that need additional evidence. However, any categorical and principled assertion of the 66 books as necessarily limiting divine revelation is going to fall flat.

What is clear from Scripture is that the truths of the faith come only from divine revelation, which is found either in the Old Testament (probably what is being referred to in most of the NT passages that refer to Scripture) or in apostolic teaching. This apostolic teaching was passed on in the first century by both written and oral means. The question between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox is whether all of it was eventually written down in the NT or not. The question between Catholics and Protestants/Orthodox is whether the Bishop of Rome and the other bishops in communion with him have the sole and infallible authority to determine what is apostolic teaching and how it should be interpreted.

Arguments for or against some abstract principle of “sola scriptura” do not help us answer either of these questions, though they may clear away faulty presuppositions that prevent us from addressing them.

Edwin

 

[Romulus]

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?

Ok, be patient with me Wayne… So there appears to be many definitions by protestants as to what SS is. What is your accepted definition of SS? What is the widely accepted definition by most protestants?

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”

Sure, but that is according to their own personal interpretation whether or not it is “contrary to Scripture”. Yeah, if someone accepts, “If it ain’t in Scripture it ain’t true”…If SS is not in scripture explicitly or implicitly, then it is not true. If the Trinity is not in scripture explicitly or implicitly, then it is not true.

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.

Sure, they are sinners in the Church…thus allowing the “dirty laundry” to come out and make the Church look bad…but they made themselves look bad. We may need to get on another thread or make a new thread “NT Church is the Catholic Church?”

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 good attempt and I’d suppose most reformers had good intentions…but SS backfired…it has caused and continues to cause division and confusion. A lot of historical evidence of that.

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.

I’ll look into it…but again, people in the Church may have done foolish/sinnful things…but it doesn’t mean the Church is no good…of course this is true if someone has faith that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus established.

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.

Wayne you seem to be very knowledgeable and post a lot of information. Can you prove to us how SS doesn’t contradict the Canon of Scripture? Use scriptures and deductive reasoning…syllogisms. And of course with major and minor premises that we all as Christians agree on Here are some good links to build your valid sound argument.

friesian.com/aristotl.htm

roninabox.com/venndiagram.html

 

[Romulus]

“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?”. Well none really,

Wrong. There is a difference to Catholics…correct me if I’m wrong catholics, …Catholics have “faith” that the Pope is the Vicarious Shepherd to whom Jesus commanded he take care of the flock…therefore he is more credible and has final authority in regards to the truths. To a protestant, a biblical scholar doesn’t have final authority.

“Sola Scriptura is just not practical”: I would agree if SS referred simply to the written text per se, but it does not. It refers to the content and meaning within the broader definitions I have given.

Again, according to whose interpretation of the content and meaning? It may appear that it a tradition contradicts scripture…but does it really?

Put yourself in the shoes of the Reformists, people with a genuine love of Jesus Christ and His Church, and frustrated by a Papal authority that wandered off into some dubious practices, with the pain of the Inquisition still fresh in their memories, and love not exactly abounding from the Bishops in Rome.
What would your reactions have been?
Would you have unquestioningly followed all that Rome put before you?
If you had not known Scripture, because it was not available to you, how could you know that the authority of Rome had become corrupt in certain respects?

More dirty laundry… I agree, some very bad sinners during that time. But catholics have “faith” that it is still the “pillar of truth” even it has humans members that are bad sinners.

Had the Reformation not occurred, would Rome have put itself right? Jesus declared that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it”, maybe, just maybe, He had a hand in the Reformation at a time when Rome had strayed. I know such thoughts would send shudders through some, but ask yourself, in the light of history, where was Rome going, and where would it be today if it had continued on the same path without a reformation of some kind?
Often, the most loyal followers are those who are prepared to question.

Interesting point Wayne, buddy of mine mentioned this also. Jesus had a hand in dividing his Church? If so, contradict himself? I have faith that he won’t contradict himself…in fact, I haven’t ran into any Jesus contradictions in any of the Gospels.

To question that his Church will stray from the Truth and teach error…is to question your faith in Jesus. It may have been a disturbing path during the time, due to the sinfulness of the members, regardless…catholic faith says that it still teaches the truth and like you said, “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it” even if its human members do sinful foolish things.

peace be with you

 

[Nick_Jones]

“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

Hi Ken,

If SS is defined by, “if it ain’t in the Bible I do not believe it”, then your simple argument would indeed be valid.

ISTM that you are placing an impossible and unnecessary burden on the Scriptures here. If such a list had ever been discovered, how would you determine that the list was itself canonical? By who’s authority could this be determined?

The RC religion claims that through their “infallible” authoritative structure—and by it alone, we can attain certain knowledge. But if such certainty were available, what need is there for faith? At this point you might reply, we have faith that our church (the RCC) is the one true church established by Jesus. Is this the faith that saves? Are we saved by trusting in a religion or by trusting God? The reason why Jesus and His followers were mocked (and always will be until He returns) is because everything we Christians believe…must ultimately be accepted on faith. The Scriptures need no earthly authority to make them what they already are. Scripture is what it is (God-breathed) regardless what any church or council may decide. Scripture was indeed given to us as our sole inerrant rule of faith just as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. It is not inconsistent to trust that the bible is our sole inerrant rule of faith AND the canon is revealed by the very nature of what Scripture is. For these reasons, the “canon argument” that many RC’s are so fond of, is not a valid one.

 

[Romulus]

The RC religion claims that through their “infallible” authoritative structure—and by it alone, we can attain certain knowledge. But if such certainty were available, what need is there for faith? At this point you might reply, we have faith that our church (the RCC) is the one true church established by Jesus. Is this the faith that saves? Are we saved by trusting in a religion or by trusting God?

Hi Nick,

Faith is needed…like you said, “faith that our church is the one true church established by Jesus.” Trusting in Jesus’ Church which is guided by the Spirit is trusting God.

The Scriptures need no earthly authority to make them what they already are. Scripture is what it is (God-breathed) regardless what any church or council may decide.

How do we know the scriptures are God breathed?..A Church decided that Paul’s letter is true…then Paul, an ex-christian prosecutor, a man, a member of Jesus’ Church told us that the OT are god breathed…if you’ll like to include NT, sure you can…but we have faith in Paul that his statement that the scriptures are God breathed. Someone who accepts his statement is submitting the authority of a man, Paul, in turn submitting to Jesus’ Church or Council, in turn submitting to Jesus, in turn submitting to God.

Scripture was indeed given to us as our sole inerrant rule of faith just as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. It is not inconsistent to trust that the bible is our sole inerrant rule of faith AND the canon is revealed by the very nature of what Scripture is. For these reasons, the “canon argument” that many RC’s are so fond of, is not a valid one.

Where do you get “sole” from? You can’t get that from 2nd Tim. Can you prove to everyone using scriptures and “deductive reasoning” with a syllogism? Read my logical proof for scripture insufficiency in post #114 where I used 2nd Tim 3:16.

Here are some good link to help build your sound valid argument

friesian.com/aristotl.htm

roninabox.com/venndiagram.html

peace be with you

 

[WayneTalbot]

In earlier posts, I have tried to encourage an understanding of Sola Scriptura from the stance of what it was trying to accomplish, rather than debating the academic issue of the term itself and its validity. I acknowledge that understanding has drifted over the intervening years, and it may be an arrogance to restate it at this time, but I will reiterate that the Reformists were trying to centre theology and practice on Scripture itself.
I have also said that I find the statement, “We cannot fully understand Scripture” and similar positions to be of little value, as they can mean whatever we want them to mean, depending on our context and our emphasis on the word “fully”. I would contend that there is much that we can understand, without the benefit of guidance and scholarship, and in those instances at least, we are allowed “private interpretation”. Indeed it is our duty to God to understand what we can, and where we cannot, then perhaps accept the guidance of the Church, and maybe even consider whether an understanding is even necessary in working out our own salvation.
I have referred to both “practice” and theology, as it was as much Church practice that so incensed some Reformists. So now, let us move from the purely theoretical, let me put these thoughts together in a practical example, where you can use “private interpretation” to adjudge Church behaviour, and decide for yourself whether you accept Papal authority in all things, or whether in all honesty, you believe it is right to question, and even to disagree. Be careful, you may find yourself taking the position of the Reformists, and arguing that certain practices are not Scriptural.
I could choose from many examples, but let us start with this scenario.
Consider yourself a Pope in the Middle Ages, you have some coinage in your coffers, and access to more through fund-raising, even if you won’t stoop to selling indulgences. You have a project in mind, to build a great cathedral, a city even, and have it decorated by the best painters and sculptors available, and you realise that the cost is going to be enormous. Do you choose to (a) build the cathedral, or (b) give the money to the poor?
Will building the most magnificent edifice in the world give glory to God, or to man?
Here are some Old Testament passages about temples past: Exodus 20:24-25, 1 Chronicles 22:2-19, 1 Chronicles 29:1-9, Ezra 1 – 7.
I guess the questions here are: are the OT instructions to the Jews applicable to Christians, does the New Testament make any reference to building temples in which the faithful worship, or is the focus on outreach, preaching the gospel to those who haven’t received God’s word. Where does Scripture lead us in evaluating the comfort of the faithful versus the needs of the poor?
Now consider yourself as the current Pope. You have before you a proposal to hold a World Youth Day in Sydney, Australia. You are advised that up to 500,000 will attend and that Sydney residents will be forced to live under emergency laws, authorities having the power to conduct body searches, confiscate vehicles, and evict people from events. A whole industry will be disrupted for three months because you will take over their premises. The project will cost hundreds of millions, directly to the Church, to the attendees, and to the people and industry you will displace from their normal lives, and you will only be preaching to the converted anyway.
Do you choose to (a) go ahead with the event, or (b) decide to spend the money on helping the poor and spreading the Gospel to those people who have yet to receive it.
Justify your decision based on what you think Jesus would do.
This then, is perhaps the crux of centering theology and practice on Scripture: what would Jesus say or do?
1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test all things; hold fast what is good”.
I know that it can be disconcerting to question the actions, decisions, and practices of the Church in general and the Pope in particular, and I would not judge the motives of those who hold to a different view, but in the scenarios quoted above, what would you do, and how would it sit with your conscience?
Do you now have some empathy with the Reformists?
Finally, let me rebuke those who use the term “dirty laundry”. It is emotive and pejorative, and hardly worthy of these pages. Pointing out past errors is not in the sense that all have sinned, it relates to a pattern of belief and behaviour, and that is an entirely different thing. Sin essentially comes from the mind (and no, I am not going to debate that here, we can do that later with reference to the works of Augustine, Jerome, and others), and persistent behaviour evidences where the mind is at.
Think of some early Church behaviours from that perspective, not as single acts of sin that we are all predisposed to.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Hi Nick,

Faith is needed…like you said, “faith that our church is the one true church established by Jesus.” Trusting in Jesus’ Church which is guided by the Spirit is trusting God.

But ISTM that the main priority of RC apologists in these sorts of forums, is to honor the RCC and to “prove” that we ought to place our faith in her (Rome). But as you can imagine, this, to many non Catholic Christians, seems to be putting one’s cart ahead of the horse. Instead of a priory placing our faith in some particular religion or particular religious institution, it is infinitely better to make the worship of God our primary focus and to trust entirely on Him to lead you to the church that honors Him.

How do we know the scriptures are God breathed?..A Church decided that Paul’s letter is true…then Paul, an ex-christian prosecutor, a man, a member of Jesus’ Church told us that the OT are god breathed…if you’ll like to include NT, sure you can…but we have faith in Paul that his statement that the scriptures are God breathed. Someone who accepts his statement is submitting the authority of a man, Paul, in turn submitting to Jesus’ Church or Council, in turn submitting to Jesus, in turn submitting to God.

If the Scriptures aren’t God breathed then why trust them? But then we MUST trust in something. How do we know the scriptures are God breathed? To me, this is like asking, “How did Jesus turn water into wine?” It might be nice to know the details of HOW such things happen, but it really comes down to faith, since we won’t be capable of proving that the Scriptures are, in fact, God breathed. I trust in the Scriptures (as God breathed) because they are utterly unique, powerful, consistent, etc.

Where do you get “sole” from? You can’t get that from 2nd Tim.

I get “sole” inerrant rule of faith by the reason God has provided the Scriptures to us, and by the lack of any real alternative to SS. Do you propose some alternative to SS?

Can you prove to everyone using scriptures and “deductive reasoning” with a syllogism? Read my logical proof for scripture insufficiency in post #114 where I used 2nd Tim 3:16.

No, I’m not really convinced that rigorous logical “proofs” are what is needed. I was persuaded by faith, but I do think my faith is at least supportable with reason.

 

[WayneTalbot]

No, I’m not really convinced that rigorous logical “proofs” are what is needed. I was persuaded by faith, but I do think my faith is at least supportable with reason.

In support of faith being supported by reason, and as a method of intellectually accepting Scripture as God-given, without resorting to what some would call “blind faith”, it can be useful to read what is written about the authenticity of the Bible texts.
C.S. Lewis, a one time atheist, and among the best known Christian apologists of the 20th Century, converted to Christianity after studying history and Scripture, while describing himself as “the most reluctant Christian in all England”.
Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School and author of the three volume work, “A Treatise on the Laws of Evidence”, still used today, wrote a book entitled “The Testimony of the Evangelists” in which he uses the rules of evidence to demonstrate that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
There are many other such works, such as “The Historic Reliability of the Gospels” by Craig Blomberg, “New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable” by F.F. Bruce, “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell, three works by Lee Strobel - The Case for (1) A Creator, (2) Christ, (3) Faith, “The Third Day - The Reality of the Resurrection” by Hank Hanegraaf, etc. Each of these examines reliability of the Gospels and Epistles and demonstrates why we can accept them as genuine historical documents.
As C.S. Lewis concluded, if the documents are genuine, that what they say happened actually happened, that there is no good reason to doubt that what was recorded was actually said and done, then Jesus must be God. Thus what He teached was God’s Word, and when He validated the Old Testament, that too must be God’s word.
None of this is to subvert Jesus’ teachings regarding Faith, but it can at least demonstrate that such belief is reasonable, and that intellectually, one need not hide behind faith alone in explaining our beliefs.

 

[Romulus]

But ISTM that the main priority of RC apologists in these sorts of forums, is to honor the RCC and to “prove” that we ought to place our faith in her (Rome). But as you can imagine, this, to many non Catholic Christians, seems to be putting one’s cart ahead of the horse. Instead of a priory placing our faith in some particular religion or particular religious institution, it is infinitely better to make the worship of God our primary focus and to trust entirely on Him to lead you to the church that honors Him.

We should all pray that everyone may be “led to the one Church” Jesus established…and those already there, that they may stay. We know they are thousands and thousands of divided churches out there…and they continue to divide. Once there, If you trust Jesus, you should trust his Church…“the pillar of Truth”.

If the Scriptures aren’t God breathed then why trust them? But then we MUST trust in something. How do we know the scriptures are God breathed? To me, this is like asking, “How did Jesus turn water into wine?” It might be nice to know the details of HOW such things happen, but it really comes down to faith, since we won’t be capable of proving that the Scriptures are, in fact, God breathed. I trust in the Scriptures (as God breathed) because they are utterly unique, powerful, consistent, etc.

Sure it is faith, we agree. The miracles that Jesus did…it is a mystery…just like the Trinity. You trust the Scriptures because you have faith…but to begin with, the scriptures were exposed to you by men and the Church. So you also have faith that these men and/or Church exposed you to legitimate “God-breathed scriptures” and not some fable.

I get “sole” inerrant rule of faith by the reason God has provided the Scriptures to us, and by the lack of any real alternative to SS.

Yes, God provided Scripture for us…but it is not the sole thing he provided for us. “Sole Scripture”… Where is this in scripture? “sole” is the issue. Is it explicit? Implicit? Show us using logical reasoning and scriptures. By the way, you probably don’t know it, but you attempted a syllogism here… Try setting it up clearly so you can see whether it is a “sound valid argument”…by just glancing at it appears to be an invalid argument.

Do you propose some alternative to SS?

Sacred Scripture needs an Authoritative Interpreter and since not everything is in Scripture, Sacred Tradition that doesn’t contradict Scripture is needed. The “tripod”.

No, I’m not really convinced that rigorous logical “proofs” are what is needed. I was persuaded by faith, but I do think my faith is at least supportable with reason.

Supported by “reason”?? How do you know this if you said you don’t use “formal logic” a.k.a “deductive reasoning” a.k.a. “syllogisms”?? How do you know if your conclusions are “reasonable” if you reject the use of “deductive reasoning”

It looks like you contradicted yourself. Correct me if I’m wrong.

peace be with you

By the way, I’m not here just for the sake of arguing…just seeking the truth like everyone else…and sharing.

 

[Nick_Jones]

By the way, I’m not here just for the sake of arguing…just seeking the truth like everyone else…and sharing.

I’m honored to get the chance to discuss these things with you, Romulus, and Wayne Talbot as well. I am enjoying this discussion very much!

I’ll respond to your latest post in the next several hours if I get a chance. I wish I didn’t have so much work to do.

 

[Nick_Jones]

We should all pray that everyone may be “led to the one Church” Jesus established…and those already there, that they may stay. We know they are thousands and thousands of divided churches out there…and they continue to divide. Once there, If you trust Jesus, you should trust his Church…“the pillar of Truth”.

I’m in agreement with you here, at least if I’m understanding what you’re saying. And I think its important to point out that the cause of division is sin, even though RC’s often seem to attribute the division to SS.

Sure it is faith, we agree. The miracles that Jesus did…it is a mystery…just like the Trinity. You trust the Scriptures because you have faith…but to begin with, the scriptures were exposed to you by men and the Church. So you also have faith that these men and/or Church exposed you to legitimate “God-breathed scriptures” and not some fable.

This is true, as far as it goes, but for me it is grounded in my faith that God provided His written word to His church for very specific reasons, and because He is sovereign, God’s plans can’t be defeated, delayed, or hindered by anyone or anything.

Yes, God provided Scripture for us…but it is not the sole thing he provided for us. “Sole Scripture”… Where is this in scripture? “sole” is the issue. Is it explicit? Implicit? Show us using logical reasoning and scriptures.

Right, God provides food, shelter, and everything else. But to understand the reformers emphasis on “Scripture alone” as our inerrant rule of faith I would agree with what Wayne Talbot said about how far Rome had drifted away from Scripture, and the somewhat less than noble causes embraced by the RCC. The problem, in my view, is not just that there were some rather naughty popes at various times. The real problem is deeper and isn’t limited to Rome, or the CC --the problem is that human beings are fallen creatures that tend to be at their very worst when they have the most money, power, and devotion. Any system of authority that hands too much money, power, and devotion to one person–often for several years, is on thin ice.

By the way, you probably don’t know it, but you attempted a syllogism here… Try setting it up clearly so you can see whether it is a “sound valid argument”…by just glancing at it appears to be an invalid argument.

I’ll let you, or someone else do that! There are lots of “valid arguments” that seem convincing on paper…but don’t work that well when applied in the real world.

Sacred Scripture needs an Authoritative Interpreter and since not everything is in Scripture, Sacred Tradition that doesn’t contradict Scripture is needed. The “tripod”.

Then who will serve as our authoritative guide to that Authoritative Interpreter? On who’s authority should we discern which church is the one established by Christ?

Supported by “reason”?? How do you know this if you said you don’t use “formal logic” a.k.a “deductive reasoning” a.k.a. “syllogisms”?? How do you know if your conclusions are “reasonable” if you reject the use of “deductive reasoning”

It looks like you contradicted yourself. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t reject the use of deductive reasoning, I just don’t place the same emphasis on it that you do.

 

[Romulus]

Right, God provides food, shelter, and everything else. But to understand the reformers emphasis on “Scripture alone” as our inerrant rule of faith I would agree with what Wayne Talbot said about how far Rome had drifted away from Scripture, and the somewhat less than noble causes embraced by the RCC.

Glad you are enjoying our exchanges! I believe this is a good learning experience for us all.

“drifted away from Scripture”… Again, that is according to a private interpretation of Scripture. Anyone can make the Scripture say what ever they want…and we can sometimes use “formal logic” to expose its fallacy. I have already shown a syllogism on how you can’t conclude “sole” from 2nd Tim.

Anyone can come up with an interpretation and make it seem like a Tradition has “drifted”…when it really has not.

As far as “less than noble causes”…yeah it happened and it will more than likely happen in the future…but the Truth it teaches as far as Dogma is concerned is guided by the SPIRIT in some supernatural way that we cannot explain…like Jesus’ miracles.

In fact, here is one of the first “less than noble causes” first recorded…Peter being a devoted disciple…then quickly walking around denying Christ three times and saying he is not a disciple to save himself…and that is because Christ foretold it to him.

the problem is that human beings are fallen creatures that tend to be at their very worst when they have the most money, power, and devotion. Any system of authority that hands too much money, power, and devotion to one person–often for several years, is on thin ice.

Agreed. It is tough. But having faith and trusting in Jesus…is having faith in his Church and the system he has placed to spread the gospel and making disciples of all nations. It may stumble with its sinful members who are “human beings”…but the “Pillar of Truth” stands…“gates shall not prevail against it”…meaning it will teach no error in regards to what is incontrovertibly true.

I’ll let you, or someone else do that! There are lots of “valid arguments” that seem convincing on paper…but don’t work that well when applied in the real world.

Ok, when I have time… And it takes me time…but it is good practice.

Then who will serve as our authoritative guide to that Authoritative Interpreter? On who’s authority should we discern which church is the one established by Christ?

Very good questions Nick… Here is where faith comes in…and some “inductive reasoning”. Inductive meaning statistical and/or historical evidence…it is certainly not 100% conclusive…but it can give us an idea.

Historically speaking…there is a lot of evidence that the “CC is the one Church established by Christ”…yes, it is debatable…but to me personally a lot data does seem to point to her…“inductive reasoning”.

Faith…Correct me if I’m wrong Catholics…Catholics have faith…that the SPIRIT will guide to the Authoritative Interpreter…the CC. In fact, The Spirit will teach you all things concerning Jesus…it can show you which church is the one established by Christ…which is by the way, infallible in regards to the incontrovertible truth…but gotta be careful here…we must “test the Spirits” whether it is in agreement with Jesus and his Church…Paul tells us in the NT 1st John. But we are fallible human beings, even the Pope!..we can be led astray by other spirits, unknowingly give in to the flesh…Galatians…so faith is needed in Jesus’ Church which is a system made up of fallible humans to help/teach/protect/guide us…Jesus said, “feed my lambs.”

Yes, I mentioned the pope is fallible…but he is not when in “ex-cathdra” mode…yes, this is where faith in Jesus and his Church kicks in. It is not a contradiction saying he is fallible and infallible…since it is conditional, it doesn’t happen at the same time.

I don’t reject the use of deductive reasoning, I just don’t place the same emphasis on it that you do.

That is good! I’m still learning and applying it myself. And I highly recommend you and everyone here to be amateur logicians…it comes in handy to either prove or disprove statements. It is a shame you don’t put more emphasis. Study my “deductive reasoning” a.k.a. syllogism on post #114. Maybe, if once you see how this tool can help us…you’ll place a little more emphasis.

Looks like I went a little off topic here…sorry about that…we may need to get on a thread called “Jesus’ Church…where is it today!?” Let us stick to the “proof that sola scriptura is either true or false”

Thanks for the feedback!

peace be with you

 

[Cling2Cross]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, **throughly furnished **unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV)

Scripture is sufficient…and certainly it is profitable.

 

[WayneTalbot]

One might easily get the impression from some of my earlier posts, given that I do support Sola Scriptura to some extent using a broader definition, that I actually subscribe to the proposition that Scripture is “sufficient”, viz, that it contains all that we need to know.
Let me here state - that is not my position.
There are some issues that Scripture does not deal with sufficiently for us to make a call one way or another, and we must make recourse to understanding how the early Church saw it.
Sometimes there is a strong provenance, sometimes not.
In the former case, if we find what appears to be convincing evidence that a practice or belief can be traced back to the Apostles or early Disciples, then I believe it is incumbent upon us to accept it, irrespective of how we may personally interpret Scripture.
For example, baptism.
My own reading of Scripture leads me to believe that committing oneself to Jesus Christ is an act of will, albeit through the grace of God granting us faith. God being just and fair, I cannot but believe that He gives us all equal opportunity in this regard, but it is our choice as to whether we accept His gift.
Without going into the long detail, this has led me to the view that the practice of infant baptism is perhaps not what was intended - rather, baptism was for people making a conscious commitment and thus one had to have a level of consciousness about such matters.
This is the Protestant view that arose during the Reformation, and is held by many today. I sympathise with the view, I understand it, and I can see the reasoning as I arrived at it independently myself (at least, I think I did, who can be sure what earlier readings have influenced us?).
However, there is much documentary evidence that infant baptism was practiced from the 1st century onwards, the only debate being whether one should wait the requisite number of days as with circumcision.
This being so, it is reasonable to accept that infant baptism was accepted by Jesus’ disciples.
Good enough for me, Tradition shows that my own interpretation of Scripture, where the issue is not dealt with explicitly, is quite possibly, and even probably, wrong.
The only aspect that gets under my skin with Church attitude is that one is automatically excommunicated if one doesn’t agree with the Church position. I still don’t see that as a behaviour of Jesus, He fought against legalism, just as the Church fought against the legalism of the Donatists, sensibly for a change.
There are other issues where the position of Scripture is clear, because it deals with them explicitly, unlike infant baptism which it doesn’t deal with. It is these cases where even if the Tradition trail can be traced, one still cannot find a satisfactory answer.
Maybe I will deal with one of those in my next post, I will have to choose carefully so as not to offend.

 

[Romulus]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, **throughly furnished **unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV)

Scripture is sufficient…and certainly it is profitable.

Cling…read my post#114 on this thread. Scripture is insufficient. If you still disagree, tell me where my syllogism fails. Thanks for the feedback.

peace be with you

 

[Romulus]

The only aspect that gets under my skin with Church attitude is that one is automatically excommunicated if one doesn’t agree with the Church position. I still don’t see that as a behaviour of Jesus, He fought against legalism, just as the Church fought against the legalism of the Donatists, sensibly for a change.
.

It is unfortunate that it gets under your skin Wayne…The Church has final authority…it is what Jesus taught.

MATT 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

The church establishes “rules” which are conservative (bind) liberal (loose) and makes the final call in regards to what is incontrovertibly true…Catholics can disagree with doctrines that are not dogmas…but not the other way around …so if someone does not submit to the Church…Jesus calls him a “heathen”

Here is another from Paul

GAL 1: 6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be **anathema. **

Paul, a superior of the early Church says, someone who preaches perverted a.k.a. distorted “good news” is to be an anathema or excommunicated. Example of distorting scripture…preaching that scripture says something other than what it really says…and “formal logic” applied to this arguments can help us detect these fallacies.

peace be with you

 

[WayneTalbot]

It is unfortunate that it gets under your skin Wayne…The Church has final authority…it is what Jesus taught.

peace be with you

Actually, I, and many others, do not agree with the interpretation that Jesus taught that the organisation of the Catholic Church has final authority.
It starts with a definition of Christ’s church.
Many take the “church”, as Jesus referred, to mean all those who believe on Him, a community of believers. Church can also mean a specific community, such as referred to in the Seven Churches in Revelation.
Jesus did not teach that any believer can be irrevocably excommunicated from Him, only some specific denunication of the Holy Spirit, not really understood by anyone, is ever referred to. There is sin unto death, again subject to interpretation, but understood by many to be simply unrepented sin.
Any claim to legitimacy that the Catholic Church had to “final authority” was long ago lost. The Inquisitions, and the persecution of the Jews, stretching from the 13th to the 16th century, presided over by more than 20 popes, is evidence to me, and many others, that it lost its way. And that is just one example of a long period, presided over by generations of popes, where Church practice was clearly not in conformity with Christ’s teachings.
Recent popes have seen fit to apologise, and I applaud them for that.
Christ’s church is His believers, those who trust in Him for salvation, those who love God with all their heart, mind, and strength, who love one another as Christ commanded, who love God by keeping His commandments.
The subject of Catholic Church authority is an interesting one, some proof texts are not universally quoted by Catholic institutions, and some have watered down interpretations, particularly as they relate to infallibility. An objective analysis of most proof texts would suggest that the Catholic Church meaning is being “read into” the texts, rather than being derived from them.
It is not my intention to criticise the Catholic Church as an institution, I have a great love for the Church, in both the spiritual and physical definition of the Church, but I am comfortable with Scripture being used for “reproof”, and I will not ignore what is plainly evident.
God’s grace be with you.

 

[Romulus]

Actually, I, and many others, do not agree with the interpretation that Jesus taught that the organisation of the Catholic Church has final authority.
It starts with a definition of Christ’s church.
Many take the “church”, as Jesus referred, to mean all those who believe on Him, a community of believers. Church can also mean a specific community, such as referred to in the Seven Churches in Revelation.
Jesus did not teach that any believer can be irrevocably excommunicated from Him, only some specific denunication of the Holy Spirit, not really understood by anyone, is ever referred to. There is sin unto death, again subject to interpretation, but understood by many to be simply unrepented sin.
Any claim to legitimacy that the Catholic Church had to “final authority” was long ago lost. The Inquisitions, and the persecution of the Jews, stretching from the 13th to the 16th century, presided over by more than 20 popes, is evidence to me, and many others, that it lost its way. And that is just one example of a long period, presided over by generations of popes, where Church practice was clearly not in conformity with Christ’s teachings.
Recent popes have seen fit to apologise, and I applaud them for that.
Christ’s church is His believers, those who trust in Him for salvation, those who love God with all their heart, mind, and strength, who love one another as Christ commanded, who love God by keeping His commandments.
The subject of Catholic Church authority is an interesting one, some proof texts are not universally quoted by Catholic institutions, and some have watered down interpretations, particularly as they relate to infallibility. An objective analysis of most proof texts would suggest that the Catholic Church meaning is being “read into” the texts, rather than being derived from them.
It is not my intention to criticise the Catholic Church as an institution, I have a great love for the Church, in both the spiritual and physical definition of the Church, but I am comfortable with Scripture being used for “reproof”, and I will not ignore what is plainly evident.
God’s grace be with you.

This leads to another thread…and I did mention we either need to create one or join one…“Jesus Church…where is it today?” Moreover, once that particular thread leads to where it really is today…SS will then be magnified to what it really is.

 

[Romulus]

An objective analysis of most proof texts would suggest that the Catholic Church meaning is being “read into” the texts, rather than being derived from them.

I’ve shown everyone here using a syllogism how “sole” and “sufficiency” is being “read into” in 2nd Tim to support SS. Again, my post#114. More feedback everyone from my post#114 is greatly appreciated.

peace be with you