Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter With_Questions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you interpret this promise?
You know, I don’t know for sure. I make no claim that I understand the Bible totally 100%.

I do know that “Whatever is bound in heaven is bound in earth” is not logically the same as “The pope is incapable of being incorrect when speaking on faith and morals”.
 
You know, I don’t know for sure. I make no claim that I understand the Bible totally 100%.

I do know that “Whatever is bound in heaven is bound in earth” is not logically the same as “The pope is incapable of being incorrect when speaking on faith and morals”.
How do you know that?

Do you mean you have trouble accepting it?

I never even thought about it before becoming Catholic, so I would have had the same confusion if I did.

The bible is so much more clear now.
 
Perhaps without an infallible outside source, you have no way of “logically proving” that the Bible is God’s inerrant word (I would have to give this some thought).

But why do I need this to be logically proved, particularly since the existence of God can not be logically proved.

However I did not come to Christ because the gospel message was logically proved. I came to Christ ultimately because it seemed credible and seemed to match my condition. In other words I had sufficient reason to believe it as true.
I’d have to say there are a couple of different reasons…

First, we can’t discount logic, because it is a gift from God 🙂

Secondly, the Church is a gift from Christ Himself…and while it may not seem we “need” the Church, I think He is a better judge of what we need.

Then, there is the fact that even while we may accept the Bible as true, solely on faith…we still cannot possibly understand all that the Bible has to say without some infallible authority guiding us from error in our interpretations.
 
Ok. Let me see if I can restate it.

The Bible contains the Truth from God to man and contains no errors in matters of faith and morals.

The Bible is the only document on earth that has no errors in matters of faith and morals.

Now, assuming that I am stating correctly what you are saying, I have a few questions.
Close enough for now. Goodie. I like answering questions. Makes me think. I like to think.
First, does the Bible need interpretation
Any written document requires some level of interpretation. I am not sure quite what you are asking here.
or is it crystal clear at all times?
If it was crystal clear at all times, I would expect there to be agreement as to what exactly it does say.
If it needs interpretation, how can it be interpreted without introducing error?
With a great deal of work, study, and diligence. And probably that does not guarantee 100% correctness.
And how is this view a form of sola scriptura?
Simple. The definition I supplied does not address the relative clarity of Scripture.

I know that some definitions do claim that the Scriptures are clear (to what extent is debatable). However my definition does not go there.
 
How do you know that?

Do you mean you have trouble accepting it?
Simple English reading comprehension.

I bet if you got 100 non Christians with a 6th grade reading comprehension level that are unfamiliar with Christianity to read this passage, not one of them would think “Whatever you bind in heaven is bound in earth” … oh that is simple … “the pope of the Roman Catholic denomination is incapable of being incorrect in matters of faith and morals.”
 
Close enough for now. Goodie. I like answering questions. Makes me think. I like to think.
I am glad one of us does
Any written document requires some level of interpretation. I am not sure quite what you are asking here.
You’ll see.
If it was crystal clear at all times, I would expect there to be agreement as to what exactly it does say.
Agreed
With a great deal of work, study, and diligence. And probably that does not guarantee 100% correctness.
Not the answer I expected. We’ll get back to this.
Simple. The definition I supplied does not address the relative clarity of Scripture.
I know that some definitions do claim that the Scriptures are clear (to what extent is debatable). However my definition does not go there.
It might need to.

We both agree that Scriptures are not clear enough for there to be no need for interpretation. Now, we are told that the Holy Spirit will come to guide us to all truth. You are also correct that we need to study and practice to get it as close to right as we can. Now, assuming that the Holy SPirit is leading all Christians in their understanding of the faith, should we not all be lead to see Scriptures as saying the same thing?
 
I’d have to say there are a couple of different reasons…

First, we can’t discount logic, because it is a gift from God 🙂

Secondly, the Church is a gift from Christ Himself…and while it may not seem we “need” the Church, I think He is a better judge of what we need.

Then, there is the fact that even while we may accept the Bible as true, solely on faith…we still cannot possibly understand all that the Bible has to say without some infallible authority guiding us from error in our interpretations.
OK.

Now we are getting into the realm of “Why we believe what we believe”.

Which is totally different from “prove this”…“disprove that”

My one comment is that it seems to me you get the same result you want if your church is authoritative and credible that you get if your church is infallible.

And logic is good. Hey I am a computer programmer by profession. But there are limits to what you can know for sure through logic.

And if you read “The Face of Sola Scriptura” (now admittedly I have not read the book, only the reviews), the author does not deny that we “need” the church. The definition I supplied does not preclude the fact that we “need” the church. The only point that my definition eliminates is the church as an infallible (not authoritative and credible) interpreter of the Bible.
 
We both agree that Scriptures are not clear enough for there to be no need for interpretation. Now, we are told that the Holy Spirit will come to guide us to all truth. You are also correct that we need to study and practice to get it as close to right as we can. Now, assuming that the Holy SPirit is leading all Christians in their understanding of the faith, should we not all be lead to see Scriptures as saying the same thing?
I think we need to understand what this Scripture is and is not saying.

I assume that the Scripture is John 16:13
But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth
We have to understand that there are no promises that
(1) this is immediate
(2) this is easy (on our part)
(3) that we can not err in trying to discern what exactly the Holy Spirit is saying to the church
(4) we can’t block the work of the Holy Spirit in this area by our own obstinence and pride
 
This verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Wouldn’t that mean the other letter is also an infallible rule of faith and conduct?

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. (1 Cor 5:9-11)
 
This verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Wouldn’t that mean the other letter is also an infallible rule of faith and conduct?

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. (1 Cor 5:9-11)
Peter confirms this when refering to all Pauls letters.

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
 
I think we need to understand what this Scripture is and is not saying.

I assume that the Scripture is John 16:13

We have to understand that there are no promises that
(1) this is immediate
(2) this is easy (on our part)
(3) that we can not err in trying to discern what exactly the Holy Spirit is saying to the church
(4) we can’t block the work of the Holy Spirit in this area by our own obstinence and pride
Wonderful. We agree on that. Assuming that all of these are correct, which they are, how can we tell that we are correctly following the teachings of Jesus?

All of this will return to proving sola scriptura biblically.
 
This verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Wouldn’t that mean the other letter is also an infallible rule of faith and conduct?

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. (1 Cor 5:9-11)
It would be an interesting debate whether “an apostle (one of the 12) writing a letter to a church or an apostle orally teaching a church” is an infallible process. I am not sure that they are (I separate infallability from authoritativeness), but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. At any rate, that is a point that would need to be proved.

Since this is an issue I don’t want to spend bandwidth exploring, I’ll say that they are for or now. You still are left with another issue.

It is logically possible that in the time of the apostles there were processes that were incapable of being incorrect then that are no longer in existence now.

In other words it is logically possible that either (a) the office of the apostle is no longer in existence or (b) the office of the apostle is in existence but in a diminished authority level in respect to the original twelve.
 
Wonderful. We agree on that. Assuming that all of these are correct, which they are, how can we tell that we are correctly following the teachings of Jesus?

All of this will return to proving sola scriptura biblically.
Good questions.

God provides a lot of resources to the believer. We have the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We have the council and teaching of the church, present day and historical. We have the written Word of God. We have His promises on our behalf. I could probably list more given more thought.

But it is not one resource. It is all of the resources of God in proper relationship to each other.

Does all of this guarantee we will never err. No. But if we err, the fault is not God’s and a lack of Him providing the necessary resources.
 
This challenge is to Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura.
.
I’ve been following this thread and admit to getting twisted around with literary gymnastics, semantics, and general word play. From my position, I would say that before we address Sola Scriptura to “disprove” it, we have to ask: How do we first know that the books contained in the Bible truly belong in the Bible in the first place? Are there books that belong, but are not included? And books that are included but do not belong? If the Bible is all we need then we must be 100 % certain that it contains ALL the books we legitimately need for guidance on faith and morals. You would think that someplace among the OT and NT books and verses there would be a listing of which books belong in the Bible and which books do not. So, basically, we are addressing the issue from the premise that the Bible is the authoritative book without asking ‘How do we know the books in the Bible, which we refer to for rules of faith and conduct, actually belong in the Bible?’ It seems Sola Scriptura places a lot of stock in the Bible as “all you need” without comprehending how it came to be. To accept the Bible without question would be Tradition, which now disputes Sola Scriptura because a source other than the Bible is referred too. So, should not those inspired to compile the Bible be the best source for explaining, much the way an unabridged textbook is now accompanied by a CD-ROM to help teach the lessons? I just think that before we can say “the Bible is all we need” we need to make certain that the books contained therein are truly and without question supposed to be there. Hope that this makes sense.
 
I just think that before we can say “the Bible is all we need” we need to make certain that the books contained therein are truly and without question supposed to be there. Hope that this makes sense.
The definition I supplied does not say “The Bible is all we need”.

Therefore disproving Sola Scriptura through the “How do we know what books are in the Bible” issue is a strawman.

You might consider this “general word play”, but words have precise meanings and sometimes fine distinctions are still important distinctions.
 
In the same vein as posing challenges to Protestants to Scripturally disprove one tenet of Catholicism, I offer a similar challenge.

This challenge is to Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura.

Now you can not Scripturally prove or disprove a sentence fragment. So I offer a very concise definition of Sola Scriptura taken from the website of my church.

However the challenge is to Scripturally disprove the sentence above (taken from my Church’s web site). I will not deal with strawman definitions.

Like the other thread, the challenge is to Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura. By Scripturally disprove I mean it is logically impossible for the above sentence to be true and the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Gabriel of 12;
Before I list my scriptures against the new 16th century “Sola” Scriptura invention by a man Martin Luther. One must first consider historical evidence.
  1. There was no New Testament bible for the first 300 years of Christianity. These Christians were taught by Apostolic Tradition, Oral teachings handed down with some apostolic letters, but not all letters were not combined until 300 years later by the Catholic church. So “Sola Scriptura” for the first 300 years of Christianity had no Scriptura from the New testament yet, thus disproving that “Sola Scriptura” was never taught or believed in for the first 15 centuries of Christianity.
2.How can you prove a new Christian theology from sacred scripture? easy, “Sola Scriptura” was never taught, believed in or written from any Apostolic Tradition. “Sola Scriptura” is a man made invention not God inspired.
  1. Not even the first century Jewish Christians ever heard of such a “Sola Scriptura”. Even though they possesed the books that “soiled the hand”.
  2. Scripture warns and teaches to all Christian communities not to partake of any new Christian teachings from false teachers that are to come, and Martin Luther was one of them. Here are the scriptures that teach against any new form of Christian teachings, which one is “Sola Scriptura”.
Ecclesiastes 1:10 Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say:
Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.

2 John 7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist. 5
9 Anyone who is so “progressive” 7 as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him;
11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.

1 Tim.1: 3 I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines
4 or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith.
5 The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,
7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, 5 kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

1 Timothy 6; 3 Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching
4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions,
5 and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain.
6 Indeed, religion with contentment is a great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into the world, just as we shall not be able to take anything out of it.
8 If we have food and clothing, we shall be content with that.
9 Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.
11 But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.
12 Compete well for the faith. Lay hold of eternal life, to which you were called when you made the noble confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Colosians 2; 16 Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. 8
20 If you died with Christ to the elemental powers of the world, why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world?
21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”
22 These are all things destined to perish with use; they accord with human precepts and teachings.
23 While they have a semblance of wisdom in rigor of devotion and self-abasement (and) severity to the body, they are of no value against gratification of the flesh.

cont;
 
Scriptures that teach against any new man made false Christian teachings like “Sola Scriptura” Continued from previous post

**2 Peter 2: 1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. **3 In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.

1John 2: 18 Children, it is the last hour; 9 and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.
20 But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, 11 and you all have knowledge.
**22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. **
23 No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.
24 Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. 13
25 And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life.
26 I write you these things about those who would deceive you.
27 As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. **But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. **

1 John 4: 1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 **This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.


**Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! **9 As we have said before, and now I say again, **if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **

Ephesians 4: 11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.
15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, 7
 
To subscribe to a new teaching such as “Sola Scriptura” is to limit the awesome POWER OF THE ONE GOD TO INK AND PAPER.

One who is Holding the living God to “Sola Scriptura” (to ink on a page) does not know the Living God that lives before the ink was placed on a page, and still lives while the ink is dried on a page. This definition does not disqualify Gods breathed word. This definition contends that “Sola Scriptura” is not of God but of man, because it limits God and his power. Just as the man who invented “Sola Scriptura”.

Peace
 
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.
Let me jump in here if I may. And, admittedly, I have only scanned my way to the end of the thread, but I have a couple of points to share.

While the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is without error, or infallible if you prefer. Man, is fallible as could be his interpretations of an infallible scripture.

With this thought, we have to look to how this infallible written word came together and lasted 1600 years to be in our hands today.

We all believe God had the power to inspire the written word, through fallible men, this includes the New Testament, which I believe this discussion is specifically referencing, since there was a canon of the Old Testament at the time of Christ and the Apostles. Ok, fallible men wrote epistles and letters, to individuals and individual Churches throughout Asia. There was not a mutual sitting of the authors of the New Testament, who sat around and decided to write Biblical “scriptures”.

Around 400AD, fallible men of the Church held council and defined a canon of the New Testament, as we know it today. To venture off topic for just a moment, I have to point out that the Church and the Faith existed for approximately 400 years without a complete New Testament.

Back to the council that defined the canon of the New Testament. It, the council of fallible men, had to be Holy Spirit protected, and accepted as such, to believe the written word is infallible, or else we have to question the epistles and letters chosen to be a part of the canon.

Now, if we trust the council of men that defined the canon of the New Testament, why can’t we trust the Church these men were a part of? There were no other Churches at that time. The Catholic Church preserved the Bible until the 1500s, when the reformation took place. The original reformers came from the Catholic Church themselves, and they took the Bible with them. There were changes made by the reformers, but all in all, the Bible remains the same with the exception of those changes that were made. Again, I have to point out, the changes were made by fallible men, outside the Church that had defined and preserved the Bible until that time.

It’s at this point we, still fallible, have to determine whose interpretations are correct. We know God is truth and truth cannot have multiple meanings. Many Churches depend on interpretations of scriptures for their doctrines. Do all those Churches have the same doctrines? Do they all agree on the interpretation?

If God protected the Church that preserved the epistles and letters, and further protected the Church that defined the canon, with a continued protection of His scriptures through the Church for another 1100 years, until the reformation, who should we depend on for an interpretation so that we are all of the same mind and judgment, as taught by St. Paul.

**Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. **

Now, one more point. God inspired it be written that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth, why didn’t God inspire it be written that the scriptures were the pillar and ground of truth if the Bible alone interpretations were also infallible? While the Bible is without error, individual personal interpretations are not, therefore we must turn to the pillar and ground of truth to receive the infallible message from God through his written word, and that is the Church. Does this verse not explain there is an infallible source besides the Bible? That infallible source being the pillar and ground of truth.

**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. **

This thought is confirmed by Christ’s direction on how to resolve disputes.

**Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. **

If scriptures were the only infallible rule of faith and conduct, why did Christ say, and God inspire it to be written, to take your brother to the Church and not to scriptures?

While the verse your Church uses on it’s website confirms scriptures to be useful, it’s already been pointed out it’s not sufficient. Being insufficient makes the Bible less than the sole rule of faith and conduct.

I apologize if I’ve strayed from the topic somehow, or gone against the “rules” imposed upon this discussion. I just didn’t see any other way to address it, without including my complete thought on this subject.
 
Hi Gabriel of 12

I have read what you posted.

I get the distinct impression what you posted addresses the two word sentence fragment Sola Scriptura and not what I have posted.

I get the impression that what you posted is a response to the proposition that “Scripture is the only authority” not “Scripture is the only infallible authority”.

I also get the impression that what you posted is a cut’n’paste job from some source somewhere. Otherwise it would seem very odd to create an original 3 page post that does not direct the original definition of the phrase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top