Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[With_Questions]

I had to snip portions of your response to fit the maximum length:

See post #2. It was the first Catholic response, and basically demolished your argument, but you moved the goal posts

How did it demolish my argument.

I looked at the Scripture and saw the phrase

not according to the tradition you received from us

It was asserted in this thread that this Scripture disproves that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith. So I started asking silly questions:
(1) Does this Scripture mean that the oral teachings of the apostles are incapable of being incorrect? Do I have good reason to believe that the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter believed themselves to be incapable of being incorrect?
(2) It they did, how would I know with certainty what tradition outside of the Bible came from the apostles and what tradition outside of the Bible is junk tradition.

If I can have good answers to these questions, then maybe I can consider changing my mind on whether there is a rule of faith other than the Bible that I have access to that is incapable of being incorrect.

Your requirements could just as easily be forced on written tradition as the verbal. So, you’re guilty of special pleading.

I honestly don’t have a clue as to what you are saying here.

Bear in mind that I have absolutely no interest in logically proving what I believe. I believe what I do not because it is provable, but because I have good and sufficient reason in my heart and spirit to do so. Otherwise I would still be an agnostic.

The KJV didn’t descend from heaven on a cloud; the Bible has a long and complicated story, and it arrived to us in its current form by way of Tradition.

By way of tradition? I thought it was God using people in a number of historical events such as the apostles writing the Scriptures and at some time later people adjucating the canon by deciding what writings of that time period are to be included and excluded. What does tradition have to do with it?

It is clear that I don’t understand what tradition is, and more important what it is not.

I’d agree with that, and therefore, we cannot verify with them what they said, OR what they wrote. You see, the problems you see for the “Tradition” position apply to the “Sola Scriptura” position as well.

Perhaps.

But I have no interest in logically proving what I believe.

Honestly, I have absolutely no intention on talking the Catholics on this board out of their belief in an infallible magisterium and infallible tradition or whatever it is. Now I have problems believing in that myself, but who knows, maybe I don’t have enough faith.

Now I have reasons for believing what I do, and maybe at some point I can share what they are but I will not pretend my reasons constitute proof.

(continued)

 

[With_Questions]

Add to my criticism of Sola Scriptura the fact that there are several different variants and textual families that would also render the position untenable. If you said to me: Scripture is the sole rule of faith. I would say to you, which one? Textus Receptus? Nestle-Aland? The Byzantine? Even in English we have the same problem. I’d hate to get into the whole “KJV-only” debate, but it clearly exists, and it is clearly a legitimate question.

Remember I don’t say Scripture is the sole rule of faith. I did say I believe it is our only infallible rule of faith.

Perhaps there are problems with this. But what are the alternatives (this is a part of my reasons to believe what I believe)?

(1) There are other infallible rules of faith that we have access to.

If that is true, then what are they and how do I know that they indeed are incapable of error outside of somebody saying they are. How do I know what is a true claim outside of a junk claim (the book of Mormon)?

(2) There are no infallible rules of faith that I have access to.

This is worse. Then how do I know what to believe outside of me picking and choosing what I like and do not like.

I’d disagree with you here. There are many things that can be proven/disproven from scripture.

On reflection, I believe that I overstated this. If I accept the inerrancy of Scripture I accept the historical record as recorded in Scripture. Furthermore I accept the clear moral code that Scripture commands.

From what I have read though, the stuff that sincere Christians spend endless hours debating over the internet on is stuff that is not provable.

And your convincing reasons are that…you believe it because it cannot be disproven?

Actually the reason why I believe what I do is that it is the most credible of all of the alternatives. I could elaborate on this.

Again, I’m not following, and I’ve read your original post. If your only point was to prove that it’s difficult to prove some things, I think I’ve wasted my time in even responding.

Actually my motivation was to give another Catholic who claimed he could logically Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura in the same sense that Protestants were unable to logically disprove Catholicism the opportunity to do so without cluttering up another thread.

Everybody knows, essentially, what the extra-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura says. (/sarcasm)

Actually I have read four different definitions in this thread. One was way-over-the-top. Two I have some nitpicks one details. One I am comfortable with.

The argument is circular:

“The Bible is the sole, infallable rule of faith because it says it is the sole, infallable rule of faith.” (which it really doesn’t, but hey)

The argument begs the question:

“The Bible…” Which one? Which textual family? Which translation? etc.

The argument is internally inconsistent:

“We believe that the Bible…” This statement is an extra-biblical doctrine, not found in the Bible, rendering the “Sola Scriptura” claim inconsistent.

The argument equivocates (fallacy of four terms: Scripture is equivocated w/ Bible).

“All Scripture is God-breathed” is equated to “The Bible is God-breathed”. This equivocation is unwarranted (Paul was referring to the OT at the time), and ambiguous (i.e. the Protestant, or Catholic canon? The KJV or the NIV? Ad infinitum…).

The statement of faith of my church was not written to be a debate document that I feel I have the onus to defend by logically proving.

I have reasons why I accept it that I can elaborate on. I can sum up my reasons as being “the most credible of all of the alternatives”

But again I have absolutely no interest in trying to talk others out of what they believe in.

It is just that when I am told that my beliefs are unscriptural and that they can prove it, that I would sort of like to know what exactly this proof is.

 

[ckempston]

With Questions -

I certainly mean you no disrespect, but I have realized that this conversation is going nowhere. Despite the fact that I typed a complete response to your previous post, I disposed of it, because I have no desire to challenge or otherwise hurt your faith.

If this is what you believe, I pray you follow it with all your heart, and that God will continue to reveal himself to you.

 

[jkarp]

With Questions -

I certainly mean you no disrespect, but I have realized that this conversation is going nowhere. Despite the fact that I typed a complete response to your previous post, I disposed of it, because I have no desire to challenge or otherwise hurt your faith.

If this is what you believe, I pray you follow it with all your heart, and that God will continue to reveal himself to you.

On that note, I’m going to agree with jim1130 & suggest that this thread be closed as the OP only seems intent on a prolonged debate.

Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels.
2 Timothy 2:23

 

[dcana]

Actually I have never claimed I can prove Sola Scriptura as Biblically true. Since it is very difficult to prove something as Biblically false, it is also very difficult to prove something as Biblically true.

I’m apologize for not having the time right now to read through 15 pages of comments, but why would you believe something concerning the Bible when you yourself claim that you cannot prove it from the Bible? This does not seem logical to me, especially given the amlpe evidence against ss found in the Bible. It’s not difficult to see that Paul exhorts the young churches both to read his letter, or letters, as the case may be, and to remember and recall all that he said when he spent days, weeks, months, or in some cases years with them. It’s only logical.

 

[ryanoneil]

I guess my point was that the church is obviously divided. These divisions the dictionnary calls denominations.

I do not believe that division was God’s plan for the church. But since it is divided, the issue is how does God view the church today.

Of course you believe that you are the one true church and that everyone else is lesser status. Meanwhile the Orthodox claim that they are the one true church. Meanwhile some strains of Baptists claim they are the one true church I guess through the trail of blood methodology or something like that. And I have heard that the Mormons and JW claim they are the one true church.

I don’t believe any of these claims are provable, and to be honest I am skeptical of all of them.

I imagine God views the Church today the same as when Christ built it!

Jesus rebuilt the Davidic kingdom in the New Covenant. He appointed a cabinet of ministers (Apostles) to carry out the tasks of the kingdom like David. (1 Kings 4:1-6)

Jesus as the new Davidic king, appointed Peter the prime minister over the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 16:18-19). Jesus evoked (Is 22:15-25) where the prime minister’s office is handed on to a successor by the symbolic act of handing on the “keys.”

So, as in Is 22, Peter’s position (given by Christ) is designed for him and his sucessors. In otherwords, the office is meant to endure as long as the kingdom itself. The other Apostles had successors as well. (Acts 1:15-26)

If you want provability look to sucession. If this isn’t proof then “it is the most credible of all of the alternatives.”

So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (Eph 2:19-22)

Yeah, the phrase “bind and loose” seems to be an ambiguous phrase.

I bet if I got ambitious I could research this and come up with a half a dozen different interpretations that different groups have of this passage, none which can be proven or disproven,

I know of one right off the bat that your favorite (or least favorite) healing TV evangelist might have, but we won’t go there.

There is no need to go there because it all depends on authority. Binding and loosing signifies teaching authority, the ability to render binding decisions, and the authority to forgive sins.

**"Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. (Mat 10:40)

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:14-15)

Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. (John 17:17-19)

(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:21-23)**

 

[dcana]

Why wouldn’t Paul have mentioned many things about the sayings and doings of our Lord in his proclamation of the Gospel to them that are not recorded in the Gospels themselves, none of which were even written when Paul began his journeys?. In my bible, there are 154 pages of the words and deeds of Jesus. According to John, “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” Why did Jesus not write a single word? Why, if the Lord transmitted the Gospel orally, do you not expect that the Gospel would spread primarily by word of mouth and not by letters? Paul’s letters represent only a scant fraction of his preaching to them, and they mostly correct errors in a few of the churches he visited or founded (seven, to be precise). What about the many other places he visited? What about what Paul preached to the nascent churches in Miletus, Neapolis, Salamis, and Antioch in Pisidia? None of those words are recorded in the Bible. What about Paul’s words to the guy who was sitting next to him on the ship? What about that guy’s words to his family when he reached home? This is how the Gospel spread. The Church decided which letters and books to include in the Bible based on what she already believed. That was the criterion for inclusion. Do we believe what this letter says or not? Is everything in it congruent with orthodox belief or not? Most were not.
You must see the larger picture and not stare at the trees so much.

:grouphug:

 

[With_Questions]

With Questions -

I certainly mean you no disrespect, but I have realized that this conversation is going nowhere. Despite the fact that I typed a complete response to your previous post, I disposed of it, because I have no desire to challenge or otherwise hurt your faith.

If this is what you believe, I pray you follow it with all your heart, and that God will continue to reveal himself to you.

Finally after 15 pages I get what I consider what I believe to be a gracious response.

And I honestly have no desire to try to persuade Catholics out of their faith even if I could (I doubt if I am smart enough to do it anyway).

It is just that I am just like y’all. When someone comes up to me and says that what I believe is wrong (unscriptural) I sort of kick my heals in, ask a whole bunch of stupid questions, and refuse to budge until all of the stupid questions are answered,

I would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. In fact, I even know the stupid questions I would ask if I were you and someone wandered in here with their Bible and started firing away at me.

Anyway, this thread is becoming mentally and emotionally tiring for me. I have already added one person to my ignore list for repeated condescension. I don’t want to add any more.

Anyway at this point I might respond to posts that either make me think about something I have not thought about before, ask me interesting questions, or something like that. I think I will step back on stuff that says I am definitely wrong and here are the Scriptures that prove my case (unless I really think they do prove your case…which I doubt…but who knows maybe I will come upon something new). It is just too tiring to me to go back and forth on the same-old-same-old. At this point, I would just as well let y’all think I am this great heretic who refuses to believe the one true church.

And besides, as fun as arguing over the internet may be, I don’t think it is all that edifying anyway.

 

[With_Questions]

I’m apologize for not having the time right now to read through 15 pages of comments, but why would you believe something concerning the Bible when you yourself claim that you cannot prove it from the Bible?

This is a good question. I like these types of questions.

I do not have time to answer it now though. Maybe this evening.

 

[With_Questions]

I’m apologize for not having the time right now to read through 15 pages of comments, but why would you believe something concerning the Bible when you yourself claim that you cannot prove it from the Bible?

Because I promised I would answer this question I will.

This will be my 2nd to the last post on this forum.

I believe what I do because of my history or my story as it were.

I did not become a Christian through your denomination, if I had I undoubtedtly would be believing what you believe.

However I became a Christian first through the Methodist denomination of my birth and then through several Pentecostal and or Charismatic churches after having a few years as an agnostic.

Now the common thread here is that none of the churches in my story had any source other than the Bible that was considered to be inerrant, infallible or whatever word you chose.

It was difficult enough for me to believe in one infallible source to be honest. I came to believe in the Bible as infallible because after reflecting on the issue it seemed reasonable to me that somehow God would provide a written account of His activities and Himself to His church.

To be honest, I never considered the possibility of multiple infallible sources. I came to believe in one source and that was enough.

Today I believe in one infallible source because (1) 0 infallible sources would be “believe whatever you want” (2) I am skeptical of all claims that I know of concerning multiple infallible sources.

First of all, the only other infallible sources other than y’all that I know of are assorted sects like JW, Mormons, etc. I do think they somehow consider themselves to be God’s prophetic voice on earth and hence unable to be incorrect. Since I believe in historic Christianity thank you, I am not going there.

Oh yes, I suppose I might add wierdos like Jim Jones who take their followers to Guyana to drink poison Kool-Aid. No thanks.

So that leaves y’all. Now I would believe that your pope is incapable of being incorrect if I believed that you all were the “one true church” with everybody else being of a lesser stature. But I don’t.

Despite all of your efforts in this regards, for a number of reasons I am not convinced that you all are the “one true church”.

So I don’t believe any of the claims out there of sources other than the Bible that are incapable of being incorrect. Furthermore I am skeptical that I will encounter any in my lifetime.

So therefore, be default I believe in one infallible, inerrant source. That would be the Bible. Thus I would be (your despised term) Sola Scriptura.

And I don’t really need to find the prooftext for this. It is just because (1) I have come to believe the Bible as infallible and inerrant, (2) I don’t believe any of the other claims out there of infallible and inerrant sources and (3) I am very skeptical I will encounter any others in my lifetime.

So I am done.

I am very tired of arguing over the internet. This is my second to the last post here. I should not have embarked on this fools journey in the first place.

 

[ryanoneil]

So I am done.

I am very tired of arguing over the internet. This is my second to the last post here. I should not have embarked on this fools journey in the first place.

Hi WQ! I know how draining internet conversations can be. I’ve enjoyed talking with you. As foolish as our efforts seem, sometimes, they often lead us closer to the truth (Jesus Christ). Hopefully you can reflect on this experience and see it as a time of discovery.

I’ve made a fool of myself many times on this forum, but I keep coming back. It usually takes me a long time to respond to a post because I use the time to look at scripture and other sources (I spent 3 hours last night responding to a conversation I’m having with a Mormon. It was only a few paragraphs long but I went back and forth between my bible and our posts a million time).

I personally reflect on my own experience and compair them with others. And it seems I always learn something about myself, scripture, my faith tradition, or some other tradition. (one big thing I’ve learned and I constantly work on is: I can’t be an attack dog and love my neighbor at the same time)

So, for what it’s worth and as frustrating as it can be, I enjoy the process itself. Ideally, conversations like these could happen over a cup of coffe, but how many of us could actually strike up a conversation about “Scripturally Disproving Sola Scriptura,” and not scare everyone away? So, I see this forum as an important luxury, so I commit time to it. Peace be with you and God bless.

Ryan

 

[KingAlfred]

“Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura”

Why would the Bible disprove itself? That’s a non-sequiter.