Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[Prodigal_Son1]

And many Scriptures were provided by Protestants in this thread, only to be rejected by Catholics.

I went through once or twice and really was surprised to see so few scriptures offered by those who support sola scriptura.

In the end nothing was disproved either way. Logically disproving something is difficult.

Approaching a discussion like this with an open mind will generally help, in some instances. Many points were merely rejected without discussion or explanation as to why they were rejected. This gave an appearance of simply rejecting because of the messenger’s religious affliation.

That is either because (1) I am stupid and do not know how to logically and Scripturally prove “Sola Scriptura”, or (2) I am not stupid and do not want to go down a rabbit trail.

Hopefully it is (2) but who knows, with my track record it could be (1).

I don’t think it’s 1 or 2.

(3) There is no scriptural support for sola scriptura.

I have discussed sola scriptura with several Protestants now, none can provide a scriptural support for this teaching.

Anyway, I will gladly explain why I believe what I do (why I have to me good and sufficient reason to believe something). However I will not do this in a debate format. If you want to believe that I am crazy for believing this, go ahead.

Not necessarily because it is logically possible that it can not be proved either way.

There are mulitple verses of scripture that disproves sola scriptura. To disprove sola scriptura, Bible alone, one must show there are other sources to receive a teaching or knowledge of a teaching. We use scriptures to show this, yet sola scripturists reject them for some reason.

**2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made
known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, **

Why is it, people will argue the Bible is infallible because of God’s power, yet they do not think His power could protect His Church to speak infallibly? It seems to be a limited faith of sorts, in my opinion.

God Bless,

 

[With_Questions]

Well, this is very interesting. The overarching doctrine is not itself contained in the very book to which it supposedly testifies?

Well in the other “prove it” thread, Catholics (correctly) asserted that "just because it is not provable in the Bible it does not necessarily follow that it is unscriptural.

Since that groundrule is good for the goose, I assume it is good for the gander.

Well, sorry WQ. The canon arguement is not a “platitude”. Without the authority of the Church, you then have to Scripture by which men may artificially proclaim authority.

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here.

Since coming to CAF, I have learned from many well trained SS persons that “SS doctrine presumes a canon”. I find this very convenient.

Hmm…that seems reasonable. I for one though have never gotten what the canon argument supposedly prooves. Maybe I am stupid though.

I would think that a book that was intended to be the ultimate authority of faith and practice would first identify itself, and then articulate this about itself. Scripture does neither.

OK. You would think that. I don’t have a problem with that myself though.

I also must note that scripture cannot be an 'infallible rule". Fallibility presupposes qualities that are possesed of persons, not the Holy Writings.

I touched on this a while back. You are correct in that technically a document can not be incapable of being incorrect. Documents do not have the ability to be “incapable”. Technically only processes (like the pope teaching on a matter of faith and morals) can be incapable of being incorrect. Not even people are infallible in that sense, only processes are.

However I can approach Scripture with the assumption that it is impossible for me to find any errors in what I am reading. So in that sense maybe it is incapable of being incorrect.

But anyway, maybe if I were in a very nitpicky mood, I could clarify the wording somewhat.

But I am not in a nitpicky mood. Not tonight anyway.

The will to act, discernment, intention etc are not qualities of scripture, and trying to make scripture “act” in ways it cannot demonstrates the artificial nature of the SS doctrine. Jesus gave authority to the Church because persons posess these qualities, not Holy Writings.

I dunno about this.

A think that a written document can be a rule of faith.

If I am assembling a bicycle, my instruction manual is my rule of faith.

I do acknowledge that the Bible is more subjective than my bicycle instruction manual. But it is not completely subjective.

The ten commandments should be sufficient warning if I get the idea I want to whack my neighbor. I don’t believe I need an infallible interpreter to get that point across.

And I for one will never argue that God provided Scripture by itself in a void. That is absurd. God also provided the church. It is the relationship of one to the other that is the issue here.

 

[With_Questions]

I went through once or twice and really was surprised to see so few scriptures offered by those who support sola scriptura.

Well all that it really takes is one really good one.

That having been said I don’t think it is Scripturally provable. Still I have reasons for believing what I do.

Approaching a discussion like this with an open mind will generally help, in some instances. Many points were merely rejected without discussion or explanation as to why they were rejected. This gave an appearance of simply rejecting because of the messenger’s religious affliation.

Of course this works both ways.

In this thread I have observed how the words “Sola Scriptura” provoke a knee-jerk reaction amongst Catholics. I base this observation on the strawman definitions they create and then tear down (not you to your credit).

Only one Catholic so far has had the sense to take a step back and ask whether my definition really is “Sola Scriptura”. And it seems that most Catholics believe this is something it is very easy to Scripturally disprove. I still am awaiting the disproof,

Somehow I sense that if I used a different title, say “Prima Scriptura” with the remaining words being the same, the reaction would be different (I actually prefer the title Prima Scriptura but it is what it is I suppose).

I don’t think it’s 1 or 2.

(3) There is no scriptural support for sola scriptura.

Believe it or not, the relative silence of Scripture is a reason I believe what I believe. I can explain this if you want.

I have discussed sola scriptura with several Protestants now, none can provide a scriptural support for this teaching.

Actually I think there is Scriptural support. Just not Scriptural proof.

There are mulitple verses of scripture that disproves sola scriptura. To disprove sola scriptura, Bible alone, one must show there are other sources to receive a teaching or knowledge of a teaching. We use scriptures to show this, yet sola scripturists reject them for some reason.

Umm…I hate to say this, but now you are tearing down a strawman. The definition of Sola Scriptura I am using says nothing that there can not be other sources. Just that these sources are not incapable of being incorrect.

**2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
**
I have never said that tradition is an invalid source (although I prefer the Wesley quadrangle term of history myself…same thought though). Just that tradition is not incapable of being incorrect.
Prodigal Son1;4575992:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made
known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,

And I have never said that the church is not necessary either. It is not an either / or proposition. The issue is the relationship between the church and the Bible.
QUOTE=Prodigal Son1;4575992]
Why is it, people will argue the Bible is infallible because of God’s power, yet they do not think His power could protect His Church to speak infallibly? It seems to be a limited faith of sorts, in my opinion.

God Bless,
Actually His power could…but that is not the issue.

The issue is what His power does. In other words what He designed.

 

[With_Questions]

Interesting point.
From the OP: If the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and conduct, then even the Apostles had to teach from it and derive their teachings from it.

The definition supplied had the word “our” supplied. It does not address what the circumstances were at the time of the apostles.

 

[With_Questions]

No, I’m not sure where you derive your convoluted logic from but you’re wrong, it does conclude the argument: if all scripture is useful for teaching and Peter and Paul weren’t using the (written) new testament (because it didn’t exist) for teaching, then scripture alone cannot be true.

Umm…first of all the original post had the word “our” in it.

The word “our” means that whatever circumstances existed at the time of the apostles is not within the scope of the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Second of all the original post said nothing about just “Scripture alone”. It had the word “infallible” in it.

 

[PJM]

Re: Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura: Prove it!

OK, but with 13 pages of post, it likely will not be accepted anyway?

** And to be “fair” I quote from the KJV…**

John Chapter 20:“30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

And from the Catholic RSV Bible

John Chapter 20: “30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31* but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

OK, so I just did what you asked! Now it’s your turn to quote where in the bible, any Christian or Catholic version that “SS” has a bibical foundation.

Consider that If Jesus who was VERY Active in His Ministery, only accomplished ONE SIGN PER DAY that would be 1,095 signs that should be reported, if He did two per day that is 2,190 signs. Obviously not EVERYTHING jesus accomplished was reported!

I caution you (as an early Christmas present) not to spend TOOOOOOO mucn time looking, because it’s not there! What else would you like to know?

God bless and Merry Christmas!

PJM m.c.

 

[jkarp]

Umm…first of all the original post had the word “our” in it. The word “our” means that whatever circumstances existed at the time of the apostles is not within the scope of the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Exactly, this proves that your church is not an apostolic one and has absolutely no teaching authority. You have added something to your teaching that isn’t rooted in scripture and wasn’t taught by the apostles and is therefore invalid.

Second of all the original post said nothing about just “Scripture alone”. It had the word “infallible” in it.

I would recommend learning a tad bit of the Latin language. Sola means “alone.” It is all over your original post, you even titled the thread “Scripturally Disprove **Sola **Scriptura,” which translates to scripturally disprove scripture alone. To wit, the quote you reference in your original post says:

and it is our only *(emphasis added) *infallible rule of faith and conduct.

If you check a thesaurus alone is a synonym of only, so you do say alone. Again you’re trying to use some sort of Jedi mind tricks to make your logic work.

 

[With_Questions]

With this admission, With Questions must then declare that the Bible from which we are asked to disprove his definition of Sola Scriptura (which is not necessarily the definition of Sola Scriptura) may not be complete or even correct; that the Bible may be missing some books and/or contain some that are not Scripture.

Why?

There is a difference between “being correct” and being “incapable of being incorrect”.

All I really need to believe is is the folks who compiled Scripture did so correctly. If I believe they were correct, then I do not have to worry about whether Scripture is complete, correct, missing some books, or have extra books. I believe what they did was 100% spot on.

Besides, as I am saying for the third time now, my definition (from the statement of faith of my church) has the word “our” in it.

 

[jkarp]

Why?

There is a difference between “being correct” and being “incapable of being incorrect”.

All I really need to believe is is the folks who compiled Scripture did so correctly. If I believe they were correct, then I do not have to worry about whether Scripture is complete, correct, missing some books, or have extra books. I believe what they did was 100% spot on.

Besides, as I am saying for the third time now, my definition (from the statement of faith of my church) has the word “our” in it.

Okay, that’s reasonable, where is the bible’s table of contents?

 

[With_Questions]

1. Christ’s church can still be “the pillar and foundation of truth” while at the same time it teaches (as truth) false doctrine opposed to Christianity.

Then let us declare it loud and clear: You hold that Christ’s church can be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” while at the same time it teaches lies about Christian doctrine to the world.

Yes I do.

That is because I believe this promise, (like many other precious promises in the Bible) is subject to explicit and implicit conditions and restrictions not contained within the passage itself. In other words it is not a gimme.

Otherwise I would believe in name-it-claim-it.

Anyway, since you are the one claiming that these Scriptures “disprove” my definition of Sola Scriptura, as a part of your disproof, you have to show that this precious promise does not have any explicit and implicit strings attached to it.

Not a good explanation. Even the Catholic Church has corporately declared that it has sinned. The question is whether it can teach sin - heresy - to the world. You obviously think it can. If that is so, then what does Ephesians 5:27 mean? You have rendered it meaningless. The church sins, the church can teach sin - so in what way does it have no spot or wrinkle?

Well, first of all the phrase immediately following this says “that she should be holy and blameless”. So there is strong Scriptural support that in this case “without spot or wrinkle” does refer to conduct. Assuming this analysis is correct (and if I follow the rule of interpreting Scripture in context it must be), one way this Scripture has meaning is that there is an implicit restriction that the passage talks about the end of the age when the church is presented without spot or wrinkle to Christ.

So if this passage regarding the church can have an implicit restriction on it, I fail to see why the other passage can not.

I have already answered. The Church can sin. What it can’t do is teach as Christian truth something that is anti-Christian. Whether the Church corporate can sin was never the question. It was always whether it can teach sin as truth. Since you affirm that not only can the church sin, but that it can also teach sin as truth, then what is the meaning of Ephesians 5:27? The answer: it is meaningless. A passage of Scripture has no meaning apparently.

No, there are other alternatives to “it is impossible for the church to teach error”. I mentioned one above.

You avoid like the plague the question that was asked. It wasn’t whether the Church can sin, it was whether the Church can teach sin as Christian truth.

Stop being condescending. No I do not avoid it like the plague.

No it is not impossible for the Church to teach sin as the Christian truth. It is certainly not God’s will for this to happen, but God does not get His way in this world all the time. I am not a Calvinist. Man has free will. Man can for a time thwart the purposes of God.

Obviously, but I am waiting for your explanation of what it does mean, especially since you believe the Church can teach error as Christian truth yet somehow the gates of hell have not overcome her.

Yup. I believe that the Church can teach error as Christian truth and the gates of hell have not overcome her. In exactly the same sense that I believe the church can sin and the gates of hell have not overcome her.

My explanation is simply that neither condition is enough for the gates of hell to triumph over the church.

Since you obviously believe this is a prooftext for your position, you have to explain just why this passage proves the gates of Hell have overpowered the church in the case of teaching when the the case of conduct from the pits of hell is obviously not sufficient for the gates of hell to overpower the church.

That is false. “Prevail” is a weaker term than “overpowered,” and it has no connotation in temporal terms in the English language. I can be prevailed upon temporarily just as I can be overpowered temporarily.

Words have multiple meanings. One meaning of the word prevail is:

1 : to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority : triumph

We triumped in WWII. It does not mean that we lost battles.

So one possible interpretation here is that “prevail” means only losing the war while both conduct and teaching from the pits of hell represent losing only a battle.

This interpretation does have the advantage of putting conduct and teaching from the pits of hell on the same plane.

Anyway, since you are the one claiming this is a prooftext, you are the one that has to show that this interpretation is impossible.

 

[With_Questions]

Okay, that’s reasonable, where is the bible’s table of contents?

Mine doesn’t have one.

Although I suppose some Bibles might have something like:
Genesis…1
Exodus…90
Leviticus…150

etc.

Your point being.

 

[jkarp]

Mine doesn’t have one.

Although I suppose some Bibles might have something like:
Genesis…1
Exodus…90
Leviticus…150

etc.

Your point being.

You are relying upon some divinely inspired table of contents. By your own admission one doesn’t exist - we all (Catholics & protestants) rely upon Sacred Tradition to tell us which books comprise the canon. If scripture doesn’t tell us what comprises scripture, then it cannot be *only *source of truth.

 

[With_Questions]

Exactly, this proves that your church is not an apostolic one and has absolutely no teaching authority. You have added something to your teaching that isn’t rooted in scripture and wasn’t taught by the apostles and is therefore invalid.

It proves nothing except that the statement of faith of my church is applicable to our church. We are not trying to impose our beliefs on the Baptist church in town.

To say that we have no teaching authority is condescending. You are not God and have absolutely no idea what God thinks of the church that I attend.

I would recommend learning a tad bit of the Latin language. Sola means “alone.” It is all over your original post, you even titled the thread “Scripturally Disprove **Sola **Scriptura,” which translates to scripturally disprove scripture alone. To wit, the quote you reference in your original post says:

If you check a thesaurus alone is a synonym of only, so you do say alone. Again you’re trying to use some sort of Jedi mind tricks to make your logic work.

I know perfectly well that “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture alone.

I also know perfectly well that the phrase “Sola Scriptura” does not have a verb. Therefore according to what I learned in 8th grade English, it does not even convey a complete thought. But who knows, maybe Miss Caleando taught us 8th graders wrong.

Unless I have a complete thought, I have absolutely no idea what it means. “The Bible Alone”? With respect to what? I don’t know.

So, since the phrase is undefined as provided, I supplied the definition from the statement of faith of my church.

 

[With_Questions]

You are relying upon some divinely inspired table of contents. By your own admission one doesn’t exist - we all (Catholics & protestants) rely upon Sacred Tradition to tell us which books comprise the canon. If scripture doesn’t tell us what comprises scripture, then it cannot be only source of truth.

What’s up with disproving Sola Scriptura through false definitions of the title?

The definition provided says nothing about the Bible being the only source of truth. Again the word only was qualified by the words our and infallible.

 

[jkarp]

It proves nothing except that the statement of faith of my church is applicable to our church. We are not trying to impose our beliefs on the Baptist church in town.

To say that we have no teaching authority is condescending. You are not God and have absolutely no idea what God thinks of the church that I attend.

Then what are you doing here attempting to argue the point?

I know perfectly well that “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture alone.

I also know perfectly well that the phrase “Sola Scriptura” does not have a verb. Therefore according to what I learned in 8th grade English, it does not even convey a complete thought. But who knows, maybe Miss Caleando taught us 8th graders wrong.

Unless I have a complete thought, I have absolutely no idea what it means. “The Bible Alone”? With respect to what? I don’t know.

So, since the phrase is undefined as provided, I supplied the definition from the statement of faith of my church.

Wow, way to completely dodge my point & not make a point at all yourself - I really don’t think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. My point was that you claimed that you didn’t say the bible alone; I pointed out that you did. Quit trying to use crazy logic to win an argument - stick to the point.

 

[jkarp]

What’s up with disproving Sola Scriptura through false definitions of the title?

The definition provided says nothing about the Bible being the only source of truth. Again the word only was qualified by the words our and infallible.

Again nothing but crazy nonsense. You say prove that scripture alone is incorrect. Everytime someone does (and it has happened at least a handful of times on this thread) you just ramble off a bunch of nonsense and say that you win the argument. How about some coherent logic?

it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

If this isn’t a claim that the bible is the only source of truth what does it say?

 

[With_Questions]

Woohoo. According to my calculations I have caught up on my backlog.

Your thread, then, is really better titled “Scripturally Disprove what I believe to be Sola Scriptura but may not really be Sola Scriptura.” Perhaps one of the other definitions is actually Sola Scriptura.

A good place to start with this thread would be for you to present your case as to why your version of Sola Scriptura is the biblical Sola Scriptura.

If you are asking me why I use the definition that I use…

That is because the other definitions that I have read overreach at least a little more than what I am really comfortable with (and the bible.ca version is a great-big-overreach).

The point is really simple: if we accept the Bible as the only rule of faith capable of being incorrect (inerrant), and we have a doctrinal discussion (say, is baptism regenerative or is it merely symbolic), who decides what the Bible inerrantly teaches on this subject?

I suppose the church. From my experience, that is what I have seen churches do, at least within the scope of their jurisdiction.

Again the definition of Sola Scriptura I provided does not negate the role of the church.

According to Sola Scriptura, if the doctrinal discussion is the nature of God, i.e., the Trinity, the definition of the Trinity, and the defense of that definition, need only rest upon the Bible.

Perhaps from the bible.ca definition of Sola Scriptura that is true.

I don’t see how this follows from the definition from the statement of faith of my church.

 

[With_Questions]

Again nothing but crazy nonsense.

Condescension alert.

You say prove that scripture alone is incorrect.

No, I say prove the definition provided in the original post is incorrect.

A two word title without a verb can not be proved correct or incorrect.

Sola Scriptura is used in the title of this thread because good thread titles to not go on for three lines or so.

Everytime someone does (and it has happened at least a handful of times on this thread)

…that strawman definitions have been disproved…yes…

you just ramble off a bunch of nonsense

Condescension alert.

and say that you win the argument.

Where have I said “I win the argument”.

How about some coherent logic?

Tell me where specifically my logic is fallacious and I will correct it. Perhaps I have not been clear in my wording or something like that.

If this isn’t a claim that the bible is the only source of truth what does it say?

That it is our only infallible source of truth.

Under one definition the church and tradition can not be a source of truth while under the second definition the church and tradition can be.

I thought this distinction was quite clear?

 

[jkarp]

That it is our only infallible source of truth.

Maybe it will make more sense written like this:
That it is our only infallible source of truth.

Under one definition the church and tradition can not be a source of truth while under the second definition the church and tradition can be.

I thought this distinction was quite clear?

Another example of your convoluted logic. You keep saying that you don’t claim it is the only source of truth. Yet, you keep posting and saying that it is but somehow by emphasizing the words “our” and “infallible” it somehow makes it disappear . . . this is an example of crazy logic - it doesn’t work. If the bible is your only source of truth, fine. But as I have stated before (and to which you have agreed), your faith is not an apostolic one and therefore, has no teaching authority.

 

[With_Questions]

Maybe it will make more sense written like this:
That it is our only infallible source of truth.

Instead of “only infallible rule of faith and conduct”.

Hmm that works for me too. But then again it is getting late and I am getting kranky. Time to stop arguing over the internet methinks.

Another example of your convoluted logic. You keep saying that you don’t claim it is the only source of truth.

Yup. If you think about it, it doesn’t make any sense that the Bible is “the only source of truth”.

Yet, you keep posting and saying that it is

Where have I said that it is. Perhaps I have miscommunicated or not beein precise in my use of words.

but somehow by emphasizing the words “our” and “infallible” it somehow makes it disappear

Where have I done that.

There is a big deal of difference in meaning between “our only infallible rule of faith and conduct” and “the only rule of faith and conduct”.

. . . this is an example of crazy logic - it doesn’t work.

Not that I am infallible, but if I have erred, I think it is most likely in the words I use to convey my thoughts.

If the bible is your only source of truth, fine.

Which it is not. Otherwise I would have absolutely no reason to go to church every seventh day.

But as I have stated before (and to which you have agreed), your faith is not an apostolic one and therefore, has no teaching authority.

I have never agreed that my faith has no teaching authority.

The only statement I agree to is that I can not trace the lineage of my faith back to St. Peter or whomever. That obviously is a big deal to you, but obviously it is not to me.

But this is a separate issue anyway.