Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[Nick_Jones]

If you recognize the authority given to the Apostles and agree that Jesus Christ established only one True Church ,then answer
me this? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire people go against the
teachings of the Church that Jesus established?

It is impossible that the Holy Spirit could inspire people to go against the teachings of the church that Jesus established. God does not lead people astray.

Why are the Scriptural interpretations of the practitioners of
sola scriptura so different from that of the Catholic Church ?
Clearly, if Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles and they
turned against the teachings of Jesus, then God ,Himself would have rescinded the authority. But this did not happen.

Because the RCC has abandoned the authority of the word of God for the sake of its own traditions. Some of the teachings of the RCC cannot be supported by Scripture. For this reason, Rome preaches a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. There is no evidence that the Roman church ever had any authority from God.

The Catholic Church has been steadfast and true to the teachings and proclamations of Jesus Christ.

There are several teachings of Rome that Jesus and the apostles never mention in the NT.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Then if you agree, why practice sola scriprura, The principle divides, rather than unites God’s people. If you believe that God will not divide His people , then sola scriptura must be inherently false.

If the Truth divides, then so be it. As for me, I would rather follow what God seems to be saying in His word… than what Rome seems to be saying in her traditions.

May God bless you this Christmas!

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is impossible that the Holy Spirit could inspire people to go against the teachings of the church that Jesus established. God does not lead people astray.

God does not contradict his teachings either. The deposit of faith, which is revealed by God, the Father through his Son, and His son established this Church to teach all truth concerning divine revelation or public revelation.

Because the RCC has abandoned the authority of the word of God for the sake of its own traditions. Some of the teachings of the RCC cannot be supported by Scripture. For this reason, Rome preaches a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. There is no evidence that the Roman church ever had any authority from God.

The Catholic Church has not abandon the authority of the Word of God. In fact, Church teachings believe that the Word of God is both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and the the only sole authority to interpret both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Considering the mere fact that the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed in Apostolic times, the Church according to Paul is the Body of Christ, and the Jesus is the Head. So when the Church teaches on moral and faith, it is not the bishop or the Pope who speak, but Jesus who speaks through his Church.

I firmly believe that Protestant Christians have abandon the Word of God by removing Traditions and Apostolic Succession. They also did away with the Sacraments. The Sacraments whom Jesus Christ established.

There are several teachings of Rome that Jesus and the apostles never mention in the NT.

Likewise the Gospel of John writes:

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25)

These many other things are the unwritten Word of God which is preserved in the Catholic Church. The Writings of the Early Church Fathers attest to these even as early as late 1st Century from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers who were taught by the Apostles themselves like St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Papias.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If the Truth divides, then so be it. As for me, I would rather follow what God seems to be saying in His word… than what Rome seems to be saying in her traditions.

May God bless you this Christmas!

The truth doesn’t divide. It’s preserved. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is immutable. His teaching is also immutable. He granted his Church the power to bind and loose. He didn’t establish his Church that authority is founded in Scriptura Alone. Rather, he pointed clearly that authority comes from the Church itself, who interpret Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Romulus]

I see it as (c)… All God-breathed things are insufficient…All Sacred Scripture and All Sacred Tradition…

(Barbara syllogism):

(True) Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Minor Premise: All Scripture is God breathed
(True) Conclusion: All Scripture is insufficient

The syllogism is valid. Double check here again. You mean it is The fallacy “Begging the question”…it can be if we don’t make the major premise an axiom (axiom - taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths.) Therefore, this argument is clear, logical and convincing for scripture insufficiency.
Here is more on Begging the question.

Since you believe that it is the fallacy “Begging the question”…then you don’t accept the Major premise as an axiom…and believe it to be false. We both accept the minor to be true since it is explicit in Timothy.

Ok, if you accept the major premise is to be false…then by the Law of non-contradiction the negation is true…which you have to accept. Negation of major premise is “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”…this is what you would end up having to believe…

Timothy: 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So some and not all of the scriptures can instruct thee to salvation…you don’t need all of it…Which ones are sufficient and which ones are not? Do you believe this? I believe we need all holy scriptures…but not solely all the holy scriptures.

Anyone else have feedback in regards to my “deductive reasoning” in regards to scripture insufficiency? Wayne is going to take some time to study syllogisms and formal logic…which I think are very good tools to use during bible study.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Then if you agree, why practice sola scriprura, The principle divides, rather than unites God’s people. If you believe that God will not divide His people , then sola scriptura must be inherently false.

If you believe that sola scriptura must be inherently false because it divides God’'s people, then by the same logic, you must accept that the Catholic Church is inherently false - it was doing much to divide people long before the Reformation.
Go back through Church history and consider the Holy Roman Empire, the unfortunate behaviour of many Popes, and the Inquisition. All along the way, there have been people turning away from the Church, not over some theological point, but over the un-Christian behaviour of the Church of Rome. Sure, the Inquisition was a battle against heresies, but *the way *it was conducted turned many people away from the Church: they simply could not accept the authority of a Church that behaved in such a barbaric fashion for nearly three hundred years.
The Reformation was a schism caused by the behaviour of the Catholic Church. Certainly, one may argue that it went too far, but it is difficult to ignore the causes of the Reformation. Rome had an opportunity to reform, but it chose not to, so some Christians decided to go another way. Were they no longer God’s people because they disagreed with Rome, even though Rome was wrong and has subsequently recognised the error?
It is easy to look at the Catholic Church of today and declare on its unity, and pronounce all splits to be the cause of others, but history provides a different view.
In times past, the Roman Catholic Church has driven people away by its behaviour; in times present, it similarly drives people away by its very dubious appeal to Tradition when a theology clearly contradicts Scripture, and the Church provides a weak argument as to why it doesn’t.
So who is it that is doing the dividing?

 

[WayneTalbot]

Anyone else have feedback in regards to my “deductive reasoning” in regards to scripture insufficiency? Wayne is going to take some time to study syllogisms and formal logic…which I think are very good tools to use during bible study.

Hi Romulus,
Did you read posts 209 and 210?
Merry Christmas,
Wayne

 

[WayneTalbot]

You have a flawed understanding of the Communion of Saints.

The above may be true, but the point regarding intercession was meant to be specifically in relation to Mary, even if I failed to make that clear.
I would be interested in you views as to why you believe that Mary could add to the intercession already available directly through Jesus and the Holy Spirt.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Likewise the Gospel of John writes:

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25)

I note that Catholic apologists often quote John 21:25 to argue that there are teachings beyond Scripture, referred to as the “unwritten Word of God which is preserved in the Catholic Church”, yet I have yet to read how they come to that understanding. That’s not to say that such an explanation is not available, simply that I am unable to find it. If you know of one, I would be delighted if you could inform me of it.

The following is not an argument in support of Sola Scriptura, it is simply an attempt to understand how the Church derives the meaning that it does. You will find these same words in an earlier post, but here I am just narrowing the focus so that there is no misunderstanding of my intent.

Catholic apologists quote Matthew 28:20 “observe ALL I have commanded”, and then go on to say that John 20:30 and 21:25 prove that not all Jesus taught is in Scripture. So, the Catholic argument goes, there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe, and this disproves the “Bible alone” theology.

Let us examine these texts.

John 20:30 says “There were many other signs that Jesus worked in the sight of the disciples, but they are not recorded in this book”.

John 21:25 says, “There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written”.

Both of these quotes relate to what Jesus did, not to what He said, taught, or commanded (the word used in Matthew 28). The “signs” in John 20:30 are most likely miracles, as this is consistent with the usage of the word “signs” in other parts of Scripture. Possibly John 21:25 is referring to the same types of activities, there is no way to tell.

But no matter what one may imagine these signs and activities to be, neither of these passages hints at teachings of Jesus, thus neither supports the contention that “not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture”. There is no mention of Jesus’ teachings, let alone any being left out. If John meant teachings, do you not think he would have said so?

Put yourself in John’s shoes: would you leave out important teachings of Jesus, or would you simply avoid repetitions? Undoubtedly, in three years of public life, Jesus said and did the same things many times over; it is reasonable to assume that John saw the faithful recording of each and every instance as unnecessarily laborious, particularly at a time when writing was such a chore. Besides, who would want to read repetitions of the same words and actions, what value would they offer?

The Catholic position, using these passages of John as proof texts, is more than a little dubious in my opinion. If you think otherwise, I would be interested to hear how you derive your interpretation.

If you have not already done so, you might care to read Post # 208, as this deals with much the same issue, but based on another passage of Scripture.

For your consideration.

 

[WayneTalbot]

the intercession already available directly through Jesus and the Holy Spirt.

Accept my apologies for my digital incompetence, obviously I meant Holy SPIRIT.

 

[Romulus]

As to the Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient - FALSE

Therefore, you believe that “Some God breathed things are sufficient”…which ones are? You mentioned the NT…where do you get this from in scripture? John 3:16…well then we get into what does it mean “who believes”…that’s another thread.

So you or someone who believes “Some God breathed things are sufficient” can chose to be ignorant of the OT or other “god breathed things”, say Sacred Tradition, whatever they may be, and still consider yourselves very knowledgeable of Jesus, salvation, God’s plan and his Church?

 

[HailMary]

more proof that Sola Scriptura is not true.

 

[rtconstant]

The above may be true, but the point regarding intercession was meant to be specifically in relation to Mary, even if I failed to make that clear.
I would be interested in you views as to why you believe that Mary could add to the intercession already available directly through Jesus and the Holy Spirt.

If by intercession you are meaning how that Jesus intercedes for us by His grace and creates a channel directly to the Father then the Saints don’t add to that at least in the way that I think you’re thinking of it.

The Saints are not additional barriers between us and the Father. Nor do they generate the divine graces that are Christ’s alone. Nor do they grant the gifts of the Spirit that are unique to The Holy Spirit.

The Saints pray for us and can be involved in spiritual lives just like our earthly brothers and sisters can. In the Catholic’s spiritual journey we gain the benefit of not only fellow Christians here on earth but those that are victorious in Heaven as well.

 

[Romulus]

In your opening line, you say (if I understand it correctly) that even with all Sacred Scripture and All Tradition, we still don’t have enough for salvation - do you really believe that, and if so, why?
What else do we need?

We need The SPIRIT, leads us to the TRUTH… Grace from GOD…which is not earned… The teaching authority of Jesus’ One Church which is “guided by the SPIRIT”. Without these…a person will take scriptures and the Church’s Doctines out of context…therefore, endangering himself/herself and others if they teach false doctrine…what will happen to these people who are purposefully or unknowingly “ignorant”…God only knows.

See the issue that arises with the doctrine of SS…SS believers can completely deny the “teaching authority of Jesus’ Church” if they believe their interpretation is correct…but they are fallible…like you and me. You believe some scripture is sufficient, in particular the NT and all other God-breathed things are not…it is your faith…I’m guessing you believe the SPIRIT has revealed this to you. Have you tested the SPIRIT…does it makes sense? But ultimately, it is your faith… For me personally, SS doesn’t make sense, it holds no water, …and it can’t be proven using Scripture using deductive reasoning… I’m open to seeing a syllogism that proves otherwise. Any takers?

Personally, I do not get that message from the Gospel that Jesus preached to us. He completed His mission of salvation on the Cross, then The Father raised Him from the dead.
End of story. Jesus said that the Scriptures had been fufilled, John 19:28-30. Does there need to be anymore?

Salvation opportunity is there… But we can lose it…

 

[rtconstant]

Thank you for a gentle and well considered response.
As to doctrines that have been added, I would prefer to not debate this issue here, but rather, simply agree to disagree.
I have studied the history of a number of Catholic doctrines, tracing their origins and development through the centuries, and I remain unconvinced as to their authenticity as originating with the Apostles. My sources of research have been almost entirely Catholic, one would have to view other sources with a degree of scepticism.
Currently I am studying the development of the Marian theologies, and with some alarm. I am still trying to get my head around the concept of a Co-Redemptrix and an omnipotent mortal as now espoused by the Church. Reading The Glories of Mary by the eighteenth century author, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, I have been deeply moved by the devotion of Catholics throughout the centuries, and by the heart warming stories of visitations and miracles. Nonetheless, I do have problems with some interpretations.
Sorry, I am debating what I said I would not.
Again, my thanks for an informative post, even though I disagree with some of your points.
May God bless you with His Peace in this season of celebration of the birth of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

You don’t have to apologize you’re seeking understanding. Though as you said some of these issues might better suited for additional threads. Still I think that maybe part of your objection to some of these doctrines likely lies in terminology. To be honest Catholics and Protestants often use similar terminology for different concepts. Take the term “intercession” for example. When a Protestant speaks of intercession he usually means something very specific, while a Catholic would view it in a broad sense that incompasses everything from Christ’s intercession with us to the Father to simply asking someone to pray for them.

It can be confusing and unfortunately it usually ends up with Protestants thinking that Catholics are suggesting something blasphemous while the Catholics are perplexed as to why Protestants find it so controversial.

 

[Romulus]

I haven’t got to your syllogism yet, but thought that I would answer your last point.
Yes, I do believe that not all Scripture is required for salvation, you do not need all of it for salvation.Most (maybe all?) of the OT is not necessary for salvation.
Jesus said, preach the Gospel, not preach Scripture.

Gospel includes OT scriptures… Yes, he who believes shall be saved… But what does it mean to “believe”…I believe it is more than just sitting around saying I faith and I believe…more than that…it is also believing in his Church which has authority to “bind and loose”…and believing in the system he has established here on Earth.

It is what the Gospel contains that is required for salvation, and Scripture containing the Gospels is thus sufficient (syllogisms aside).

Where is this in scripture? You said we don’t need any “deductive reasoning” to see this…is it explicit?

If you didn’t know the Book of Ruth, would your salvation be jeopardised? If you didn’t know the Song of Solomon, or even of its existence, would that make a difference?

No, because I believe scripture is insufficient. I don’t have that problem. Since you are a sola scripturist…being ignorant of those scriptures may keep you from testing church doctrine against scripture. Possibly a church doctrine could be influenced by some OT scriptures… but you would not know if it agrees with scripture.

A sola scripturist checks everything with the bible…they gotta know it all to help them test doctrines etc. How can a sola scripturist say that he/she only needs certain parts of the Bible?

 

[WayneTalbot]

We need The SPIRIT, leads us to the TRUTH… Grace from GOD…which is not earned… The teaching authority of Jesus’ One Church which is “guided by the SPIRIT”. Without these…a person will take scriptures and the Church’s Doctines out of context…therefore, endangering himself/herself and others if they teach false doctrine…what will happen to these people who are purposefully or unknowingly “ignorant”…God only knows.

See the issue that arises with the doctrine of SS…SS believers can completely deny the “teaching authority of Jesus’ Church” if they believe their interpretation is correct…but they are fallible…like you and me. You believe some scripture is sufficient, in particular the NT and all other God-breathed things are not…it is your faith…I’m guessing you believe the SPIRIT has revealed this to you. Have you tested the SPIRIT…does it makes sense? But ultimately, it is your faith… For me personally, SS doesn’t make sense, it holds no water, …and it can’t be proven using Scripture using deductive reasoning… I’m open to seeing a syllogism that proves otherwise. Any takers?

Salvation opportunity is there… But we can lose it…

You started well, acknowledging that we need the Spirit, Truth, and God’s Grace, all of which we agree on.
But remember that the Sola Scriptura debate does not disagree on that point, it is Tradition and the Magesterium that are at issue. The “sufficiency” relates to those areas. One could well expand into other areas of sufficiency but they don’t address the issues at hand. It does seem that you have changed the definition of sufficiency during the discussion, moving the goal posts so to speak.
You then wandered into the fallacy of the notion that the RCC represents Jesus’ One Church, preventing us from falling into error by erroneous interpretation of Scripture.
If it can be shown that the RCC continues to erroneously interpret Scripture, would your syllogistic logic show that it is not Jesus’ one true church?
You mention “taking Scriptures out of context”: read some of my recent posts like #208 and #228, and show where either my interpretation is wrong, or the RCC interpretation is “out of context”.
If you want a really good example on how badly the Church has interpreted Scripture, read up on Pope Paul IV’s *Bull Cum nimis absurdum *. Pope Paul declared that the Jews were nasty people because they crucified Jesus Christ. Now any Christian with any understanding of the NT knows that Christ’s crucifixion was foretold, that it was God’s Will, and was God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. A true interpretation and understanding of Scripture would have one treating Jews kindly, it was not them specifically, but the sins of all of us that crucified Christ. Pope Paul obvious also missed the commandment to love one another as he pursued his hatred of the Jews. This anti-semitism tradition was carried on by Innocent III and the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. A succession of popes reinforced the ancient prejudices against Jews, treating them as lepers unworthy of the protection of the law. Pius VII was followed by Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX — all good pupils of Paul IV. Leo XII (1823-9) even forbade vaccination against smallpox for Jews during an epidemic.
Now tell me this - why should I believe that the RCC is Spirit guided in its understanding of Scripture, when by their behaviour and official policy, a succession of Popes seemed not to understand the Gospel of Jesus?
They most certainly did not live it, and if we are to take to heart Jesus’ words that “by their fruit you shall know them”, what does that tell us?
My point, which I perhaps should apologise for if I harp on it, is that any argument which falls back on the notion that the RCC alone has the completeness of truth, fails by its own example, as these are not individual sins of individual Popes or clerics, sinning like we all do, this is systemic behaviour of the Church of Rome over long periods of time.
Others may choose to ignore church history, I can not.
Finally, when I said I believed that some Scripture is sufficient, because not all Scripture is needed for salvation, I was referring specifically to the scope of Scripture, not broadening the discussion to faith, grace, etc. To that point, can you show that in the context and content of Scripture, that all is necessary for salvation? Try the examples I gave, like Ruth and the Song of Solomon: show why, in the context of Scripture, knowledge of these is needed.
Then, and only then, would I address the question of how I know which parts of Scripture are needed, and there is an answer to be found in Scripture.

 

[Nick_Jones]

The two oft-cited “proof texts”, 2 Tim 3:16-17 and 1 Cor 4:6, are inadequate. Both texts refer to the Old Testament. If these texts are arguments for the sufficiency of scripture, then they are arguments for the sufficiency of the Old Testament, which would be a most unfortunate conclusion for Christianity.

This is not clear to me. Why do these texts only argue for the sufficiency of OT Scripture?

In 2 Tim 3:16-17, “All Scripture” doesn’t mean “only Scripture”.

True. But that isn’t really the pertinent issue here, is it? The issue is sufficiency of Scripture:

and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Does “thoroughly equipped” mean insufficiently equipped?

In scripture, oral transmission of the Word of God is valued along with written transmission (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2, Phil 4:9, among others).

Yes. But how does this help refute SS?

Scripture tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

If I argued the way lots of RC apologist argue, I’d probably point out that this verse doesn’t say, that the church ALONE is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[flewen]

I think it’s better to make those bulky questions into 8…because this may confuse the readers…hehehe

1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
3. Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?
4. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
5. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
6. Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
7. Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?
8. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

more questions:

catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/QuestionsForBibleChristians.doc

 

[WayneTalbot]

A sola scripturist checks everything with the bible…they gotta know it all to help them test doctrines etc. How can a sola scripturist say that he/she only needs certain parts of the Bible?

Oops, sorry, my previous post said that you did not address the issue of Ruth etc, but I should have read further posts before replying.
I don’t understand your confusion quoted above.
The reason a sola scripturist (and I am not one) can say that he/she only needs certain parts of the Bible is because he/she has read and studied all parts of the Bible, and thus understands which parts are relevant to salvation directly, and which are for general guidance only.
Much in the Bible is repetition, and much is detail which is there to authenticate the Bible.
For example, an essential tenet of the Gospel is Jesus’ lineage, from David.
The Bible gives the lineage in detail to prove that the prophecy was right, and it does it not just once, but a number of times.
The Psalms are songs of praise, and much can be learned from them, but an analysis of the content would reveal much repetition.
Do we need them all to understand?
Now I’ll admit that I may be wrong here, but I don’t see that repetition as essential for understanding salvation, one recounting would be sufficient.
You mention that Jesus referred to the OT in His Gospel, and so He did.
Using Jesus own selection of Scripture, we could reasonably assume that these are the important bits, and maybe the other bits are useful but not essential.
If I was a follower of Jesus with the Apostles, I would assume that it was what Jesus told me that was essential for salvation, not all the other stuff that was in Mosaic Law that He didn’t even talk about.
Paul argued with the Jews from Scripture to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but I doubt that he went into the same detail with the Gentiles, it would have meant little to them.
Thus, I conclude, and quite reasonably I think, and I would encourage you to demonstrate otherwise, that a study of ALL Scripture will reveal which parts are relevant to understanding the essentials of salvation, and which parts are just plain useful.
Incidentally, can you demonstrate concrete examples of truths, not found in Scripture, but essential for salvation, and demonstrate their provenance as coming from Jesus, or the Holy Spirit?