Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[AshleyBelle]

I think the answer to this is incredibly simple…though so many have given great examples of scripture AGAINST Sola Scriptura.

But the single, loudest, and most definitive reason for me is that the idea itself is NOT in the Bible!

The concept is disproven, simply by the silence of Scripture. And to say otherwise is to twist the human mind into a pretzel of skewed logic and faulty reasoning.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Please read the OP again. Since the phrase Sola Scriptura lacks a verb, I felt it necessary to provide a definition. The definition in this thread is the one in the statement of faith in my church and is based on the book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” as described in the OP.

This definition of Sola Scriptura does not discount the possibility of other sources of truth and guidance. So thus you are dealing with a strawman.

If that is your definition, then why bother posting the question?

There is nothing to debate.

 

[With_Questions]

There is subjectvity in the conclusions we draw but there is objectivity in the what the truth actually is.

I think then the truth cannot be contradictory … it must be consistent … and it must be unchanging. Where you find this you have found the pearl of great price. The goal of the Christian life is to understand the truth … where can I best understand what God intends … that is what we all seek.

I dont think you can prove SS logically false but as many already have done it does contain weakenesses SS adherents must address. One must be honest in their assessment.

I don’t disagree with this. Thank you for your honesty.

My question is does adhering to the beliefs of SS lead you closer to Christ than what the CC teaches about Scripture?

I am not sure either version would necessarily lead you closer to Christ.

However I personally believe a system of interpreting Scripture that admits that it is subject to error has a higher degree of probability of “getting it right” than a system of interpreting Scripture that claims it is “incapable of being incorrect”.

It is sort of like me and math. If I think I am incapable of being incorrect in math, I am likely not going to do the hard work of studying for the big math test. While if I admit I just might fail this test if I don’t study, I will burn the midnight oil on it.

Which approach will lead to the higher score on my math test.

But that is me.

I know I do not always understand Scripture … sometimes I find it confusing with the real message seemingly hidden … beyond the grasp of my mind … so I must turn to a reliable source to help me … this is where I see the strength of the CC … I find it a much more reliable source … one that I can trust.

Actually I am not going to dispute you here except to note that reliability and trustworthiness are not the same as infallible.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

However I personally believe a system of interpreting Scripture that admits that it is subject to error has a higher degree of probability of “getting it right” than a system of interpreting Scripture that claims it is “incapable of being incorrect”.

Unless we are led by the Holy Spirit, we will get it wrong.

The question is not, which ‘method’ will best lead us to the truth?

The question is:

Is the Catholic Church being led into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

 

[With_Questions]

you know w/questions you started this thread and you set up the rules as was your perogative(sp?)and when someone answers your post and you choose to not agree with them,you defeat the whole purpose of this thread.you dont want to hear the truth you want to continue to believe in SS.all the scripture quotes we would give you would not get you to admit you were wrong.only God thru the Holy Spirit will convince you of that.I will pray for you because you are not really looking for the truth here,its obvious you are very familiar with the arguments others are presenting you,and you know there is nothing new under the sun that anybody can provide you,so you are smuggly dismissing all objections you recive so you can stay where you are.I will pray for guidance for you as I do everyday for myself.

Condescension is also not the same as logical proof either.

But that is ok. I am not easily offended.

 

[With_Questions]

I think the answer to this is incredibly simple…though so many have given great examples of scripture AGAINST Sola Scriptura.

But the single, loudest, and most definitive reason for me is that the idea itself is NOT in the Bible!

The concept is disproven, simply by the silence of Scripture. And to say otherwise is to twist the human mind into a pretzel of skewed logic and faulty reasoning.

The other thread specifically stated that the silence of Scripture was not enough to disprove Catholicism. The thread goes round and round with Protestants who claim that the silence of Scripture on a certain point disproves Catholicism.

If lack of Scripture is the benchmark for disproof, from my perspective there is much less Scripture to support the proposition that Mary was assumed into heaven than to support the proposition that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith.

But now we risk drifting into subjectivity.

 

[With_Questions]

If that is your definition, then why bother posting the question?

There is nothing to debate.

So Catholicism agrees with this statement. That is news to me.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

 

[ncgolf]

However I personally believe a system of interpreting Scripture that admits that it is subject to error has a higher degree of probability of “getting it right” than a system of interpreting Scripture that claims it is “incapable of being incorrect”.

I don’t understand this statement. What errors are you talking about … what errors in the interpretation of Scripture does SS admit?
Are you saying SS can make interpretive errors?

Please clarify.

It is sort of like me and math. If I think I am incapable of being incorrect in math, I am likely not going to do the hard work of studying for the big math test. While if I admit I just might fail this test if I don’t study, I will burn the midnight oil on it.

Me too … I always had to study extra for math but the Church is not a student … the Church is the teacher and the name of the teacher is the Holy Spirit. This is why She cannot error in Her teaching … remember the Holy Spirit guided the writing of Scripture … what better teacher than the author.

Actually I am not going to dispute you here except to note that reliability and trustworthiness are not the same as infallible.

What level of reliability is the highest … one that cannot be wrong.

 

[AshleyBelle]

The other thread specifically stated that the silence of Scripture was not enough to disprove Catholicism. The thread goes round and round with Protestants who claim that the silence of Scripture on a certain point disproves Catholicism.

If lack of Scripture is the benchmark for disproof, from my perspective there is much less Scripture to support the proposition that Mary was assumed into heaven than to support the proposition that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith.

But now we risk drifting into subjectivity.

But do you not see the issue? If you claim that the Bible is sole authority…then shouldn’t the Bible SAY it is soul authority?

 

[ncgolf]

The Bible is the Word of God

True.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Where did the underlined part come from … what is its origin?

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.
II Timothy 3:16-17

True.

 

[ralphinal]

Not that I am that interested in this debate, I would like to point out a few things

From your supplied definition

The Bible is the Word of God

No problem.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

The Bible cannot be infallible. Fallibilty requires action. It can be inerrant, but since it does nothing, it cannot be infallible.

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.
II Timothy 3:16-17

No issue.

Here is the problem that you have set forth for us. You have started with a concept that does not exist in Scripture at all. It does not exist in Scripture because historically it did not exist in the Jewish Faith of Jesus and the Apostles nor did it exist in the Early Church. The Scriptures were vitally important in Judaism, but so was the Traditional Law. You could not separate the two and be a faithful Jew.

If Sola Scriptura was of that much importance, Jesus himself would have said it. He did not. If it was of that much importance, the Apostles would have clearly spoken of it. THey did not.

I cannot prove a negative. You cannot show me Sola Scriptura as you have defined it, either. Since it is possible to prove a positive, and you cannot do so, there is no Sola Scriptura.

 

[With_Questions]

But do you not see the issue? If you claim that the Bible is sole authority…then shouldn’t the Bible SAY it is soul authority?

Well let’s be precise on words.

The OP says the “sole infallible authority” not the “sole authority”.
“Sole authority” is a strawman definition.

The logic here to me would be:
(1) The Bible claims itself to be infallible
(2) The Bible does not identify any other authorities that are infallible, i.e. incapable of being incorrect.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Well let’s be precise on words.

The OP says the “sole infallible authority” not the “sole authority”.
“Sole authority” is a strawman definition.

The logic here to me would be:
(1) The Bible claims itself to be infallible
(2) The Bible does not identify any other authorities that are infallible, i.e. incapable of being incorrect.

Please show where the Bible claims to be infallible. I agree that it is without error…but it cannot be infallible on its own…It must be interpretted infallibly. This seems to be a misuse of the term infallible.

We do know that the Holy Spirit is infallible, and we know from Scripture that Christ instituted the Church to be the “Pillar and Bulwark” of the truth. So I would say according to scripture that the Bible is only infallible when it is read in the light of an infallible authority.

 

[With_Questions]

The Bible cannot be infallible. Fallibilty requires action. It can be inerrant, but since it does nothing, it cannot be infallible.

I actually have had the same thoughts myself. Only a process can be “incapable of being incorrect”.

But for better or worse, I have decided that is nitpicking.

I cannot prove a negative. You cannot show me Sola Scriptura as you have defined it, either. Since it is possible to prove a positive, and you cannot do so, there is no Sola Scriptura.

Just a couple of points. I think this addresses the previous post as well.

Just because something is not provable does not mean that it does not exist.

There might be life in other galaxies. I can not prove there is however.

Second. There are two senses in which it is possible to believe that the Bible is the “only infallible rule of faith”.

I might believe that in a “hard” sense that it is impossible for any other infallible rule of faith to exist. That one is difficult to prove and requires evidence that I am not sure exists.

However I might believe this in a “softer” sense in that I don’t know of any other rules of faith that are incapable of being incorrect. So therefore the only rule of faith that I accept as infallible is the Bible.

In either sense, the only rule of faith accepted as infallible is the Bible, but the underlying reason is different in the two cases.

 

[With_Questions]

Please show where the Bible claims to be infallible. I agree that it is without error…but it cannot be infallible on its own…It must be interpretted infallibly. This seems to be a misuse of the term infallible.

I agree that the word infallible technically only applies to a repeatable process. It seems to me that I have heard of that word being misused from all sides here.

It would be more precise to say that it is inerrant and that there are no other sources that are infallible. I would have to think how I would clean this loophole up.

We do know that the Holy Spirit is infallible, and we know from Scripture that Christ instituted the Church to be the “Pillar and Bulwark” of the truth. So I would say according to scripture that the Bible is only infallible when it is read in the light of an infallible authority.

The problem is that “Pillar and Bulwark of the truth” in plain English is not the same as incapable of being incorrect.

 

[AshleyBelle]

I agree that the word infallible technically only applies to a repeatable process. It seems to me that I have heard of that word being misused from all sides here.

It would be more precise to say that it is inerrant and that there are no other sources that are infallible. I would have to think how I would clean this loophole up.

The problem is that “Pillar and Bulwark of the truth” in plain English is not the same as incapable of being incorrect.

I want to know where you get this idea that there are no other infalible sources.

 

[ralphinal]

I actually have had the same thoughts myself. Only a process can be “incapable of being incorrect”.

But for better or worse, I have decided that is nitpicking.

Just a couple of points. I think this addresses the previous post as well.

Just because something is not provable does not mean that it does not exist.

There might be life in other galaxies. I can not prove there is however.

Second. There are two senses in which it is possible to believe that the Bible is the “only infallible rule of faith”.

I might believe that in a “hard” sense that it is impossible for any other infallible rule of faith to exist. That one is difficult to prove and requires evidence that I am not sure exists.

However I might believe this in a “softer” sense in that I don’t know of any other rules of faith that are incapable of being incorrect. So therefore the only rule of faith that I accept as infallible is the Bible.

In either sense, the only rule of faith accepted as infallible is the Bible, but the underlying reason is different in the two cases.

Ok. Here is how I see it.

The Bible is without error in faith and morals.

The Bible never claims to be all you need to have faith in Christ

 

[With_Questions]

I want to know where you get this idea that there are no other infalible sources.

I have insufficient reason to believe that there are any other infallible sources. If there are, I have no idea what they would be.

 

[AshleyBelle]

I have insufficient reason to believe that there are any other infallible sources. If there are, I have no idea what they would be.

Then it is only your opinion that there are no other infallible sources, and the points you used as premise above are faulty.

 

[With_Questions]

Then it is only your opinion that there are no other infallible sources, and the points you used as premise above are faulty.

Not really. If you don’t hold to any other sources being as infallibe, then by definition you hold to no other infallible sources.

However we are departing from the premise of this thread which is to Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura. I still don’t see how the statement that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and conduct can be Scripturally disproved.

Unless we agree that it can not be Scripturally disproved.