Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[hmgs1]

I think one of the issues here is that there seems to be more than one definition of SS, but regardless, could one of our Catholic members provide an example where scripture was in conflict with, say, tradition, and the Church decided in favor of the latter, and the reasoning why.

This is not an attempt to bait, but so far on this forum a lot of the animosity I see could well be based on both semantics and a lack of understanding about what the other faith’s, and one’s own faith’s, doctrine actually is.

Perhaps a concrete example might shed some light on this.

(sorry if this has been done and I missed it)

BTW, Mathison, a Calvinist who seems to agree at least in part with Rome on this, is a very good read.

 

[AshleyBelle]

I think one of the issues here is that there seems to be more than one definition of SS, but regardless, could one of our Catholic members provide an example where scripture was in conflict with, say, tradition, and the Church decided in favor of the latter, and the reasoning why.

This is not an attempt to bait, but so far on this forum a lot of the animosity I see could well be based on both semantics and a lack of understanding about what the other faith’s, and one’s own faith’s, doctrine actually is.

Perhaps a concrete example might shed some light on this.

(sorry if this has been done and I missed it)

BTW, Mathison, a Calvinist who seems to agree at least in part with Rome on this, is a very good read.

If a Catholic teaching contradicted sacred scripture or tradition, it could not be a Catholic teaching or tradition… That’s how it’s decided

 

[hmgs1]

No, you misunderstood. As I understand it, present doctrine gives the Papacy infallible interpretive powers to decide which is correct in the event that scripture and tradition conflict.

Has there ever been a case where this has happened?

Or does present doctrine suggest that tradition, being derived from scripture, can never contradict the Bible.

 

[AshleyBelle]

No, you misunderstood. As I understand it, present doctrine gives the Papacy infallible interpretive powers to decide which is correct in the event that scripture and tradition conflict.

Has there ever been a case where this has happened?

Or does present doctrine suggest that tradition, being derived from scripture, can never contradict the Bible.

If any tradition or teaching contradicted Sacred Scripture then it couldn’t be true… I like the analogy I read that our faith is like a three legged stool… It rests on the legs of Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magistirium. All three work together to support the truth, and they cannot contradict in any way. If you rely on Tradition alone, or Scripture alone, or Authority alone, the chair topples over.

Any church teaching is held in the light of Sacred Scripture, and any interpretation of Scripture is held in the light of tradition. So simply put…nothing we believe or practice may conflict with any of these three things, or that belief is not in line with the truth, as guarded by the Holy Spirit.

 

[C2M2C]

Jesus said in Mathew 28:20 “Observe all that I have commanded you.”

We know that everything that Jesus commanded was not written-

John 21:25 “…the world itself could not contain the books that would be written”

I just jumped in so I don’t know if this has been discussed. Either way, this pretty much sums it all up for me.

 

[tdgesq]

Well God also promised that the church will be “Light of the World” a “City on a Hill” a “Holy Nation”.

Yes. And also:

Matthew 16:18 (New American Standard Bible)

“I also say to you that you are (A)Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (B)Hades will not overpower it.”

Isn’t it true that if the church can teach doctrine against Christianity - the doctrine of the devil - that the gates of Hades (hell) has overpowered it?

But yet sometimes He allows this church that He gave these promises to, to be scandalized by sin, divisions, quarreling and bickering, etc

Correct, and this is true of every denomination, even the Catholic Church. Therefore, this cannot be what Scripture means when it states the gates of hell will not overpower the church or that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church teaching errors against Christianity as true is something entirely different though.

I am just saying that you can not take a promise in the Bible that says what the church is and assume that a certain result is promised.

What you say here may be correct with respect to many Scriptural passages, but not with respect to 1 Tim 3:15 and Matt 16:18. By logical necessity those verses require that the church cannot teach truths opposed to Christianity. Why? Because anything else renders them meaningless. I will show you what I mean below.

So even if it is not Gods will that the church teach heresy, and even if God provides the Holy Spirit to help the church in this regard, it does not necessarily follow that there exists a process by which it is an automatic gimme that God will protect His people.

Yes it does necessarily follow that God will protect the Church from teaching errors against Christianity. If you disagree, then you must affirm the following:

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.
2. The “gates of Hades” have not overpowered the church, even while the church teaches as truth doctrine opposed to Christianity - that is - doctrine of the devil.

Even if you swallow the reductio on either one or both of these absurdities, you have the task of demonstrating how these verses have meaning any longer.

And we still have the thorny issue of what is the church. In order to Sola Scriptura (my definition) to be disproved Scripturally, your definition of “The Church” must be proved Scripturally. Another thorny issue.

I disagree. My definition of “the church” makes no difference to the arguments above, which is why I have not provided such a definition in this thread. “The church,” regardless of the definition, is still the pillar and foundation of truth against which the gates of Hades will not prevail. As demonstrated above, that means this church cannot teach as truth doctrines that are opposed to Christianity.

Therefore, the Bible is not the only infallible rule of faith and conduct. The teaching of “the church” is as well. Sola Scriptura is disproved by Scripture.

 

[ryanoneil]

continued

It does not logically follow from these Scriptures and many others that the process of asking, praying, praying believing, or whatever else your TV evangelist du jous tells you will assure healing will actually produce the results He claims.

The reason is that all of these Scriptures may and do have implicit and explicit conditions on them found elsewhere in Gods Word. And all of them ultimately are subject to the will of God.

So you have to answer the same questions. To Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura you have to eliminate the possibility that any precious promise in Gods Holy Word that seems to promise God revealing truth to the people of God and protecting the people of God from error do not have implicit and explicit conditions on them found elsewhere in Gods Word (just like healing), and that these promises are not ultimately subject to the will of God (just like healing).

We have to do no such thing. In the OP you said "The Bible is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. Scripture says otherwise.

so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens. (Eph 3:10)

If it didn’t happen infallibly through the church, then the manifold wisdom of God wasn’t really made know. Therefore the Bible disproves that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Furthermore, you have not proved what “The Church” is. It is apparant from observation that not all denominations agree. Therefore, if “The Church” is “All believers”, then it is apparant from observation that infallibility is logically impossible. So you must Scripturally prove (if you want to take this vein) that "The Church is one and only one denomination, you must identify (from Scripture) what that denomination is, and you must eliminate all other denominations from possibly being “The Church”.

Good luck with that one.

I hope you realize that logically disproving a theological proposition is a big order.

Why would I have to prove all that? The Church is a mystery. (Eph 5:32) The significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by logic alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith.

For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:23-27)

The church is the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think much of this post operates under the assumption that Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the only resource provided.

**Response;
This is not my interpretation it is your own Church’s definition;
here it is again from your original post; unless you can provide another infallible source that can teach you, and administer the sacraments Jesus instituted and commanded his church to administer to all peoples.

With Questions; Quote follows;
The Bible is the Word of God

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**.

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

Response;
What part of only or “Sola Scriptura” do you believe that is other than the bible?

With Questions;
When I read it for about the fourth time, it hit me that the assumption of this post is that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ today exists solely in one denomination (excluding all others) and that one denomination is today the Roman Catholic Church.

Response;
You are misinformed about, the Catholic church is not a denomination she is the body of Jesus Christ. This misunderstanding leaves you no other choice but to believe only in the bible the Catholic church gave you.

With Questions;
And then it hit me that if this assumption can actually be proved, you have effectively disproved this definition of Sola Scriptura. This would be the logic.
A. The Roman Catholic church today is exclusively the Church of The Lord Jesus Christ.

**response;
This is not a presumption, you have already been given the scriptures and comments from Jesus himself and the apostles indicating the Church is the body of Jesus Christ he built upon Peter unchanged these last 2000 years.**B.

With Questions;
B. The Roman Catholic church today teaches that its pope is incapable of teaching error in matter of faith and morals

Response;
You have already been given the scriptures that prove Peter and the Church (magisterium) have been given authority from God to teach, preach, and baptise all nations and defend the faith against all heresies. Besides “Sola Scriptura” has already been defeated and matter settled by the body of Jesus Christ.

With Questions;
C. Heretic churches teach that the only infallible rule of faith and conduct is the Bible.

Response;
No, your statement is not true according to Catholic teachings. For one there have been many different Heretical teachings that have been defeated, not just “Sola Scriptura”. Besides The Catholic church, the Word of God are one, your trying to seperate the Humanity of Jesus Christ from his divinity, those who crucified Jesus attempted this and failed. Your C. comment is your opinion not a Catholic teaching.

With Questions;
For Sola Scriptura to be true, heretic churches must be correct on this very important point while the true church of Jesus Christ must be wrong.

Response;
Sola Scriptura is a man made invented belief system that comes from the pride of men who protest the body of Jesus Christ that he built upon Peter (present day Roman Catholic church). Saul did the same thing your trying to attempt, and in the end, became a Christian and witness to the Catholic faith. Please read post 117for scriptural references for who the body of Jesus Christ is;

With Questions;
This would be at best an absurdity.

So if you can Scripturally logically prove that your denomination is exclusively the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, you have effectively disproved Sola Scriptura.
W

Response;
Truthfully, I am not interested in proving “Truth” by disproving a man made “Sola Scriptura” theology. “Sola Scriptura” has not and will not survive the test of time. You have already proven this by changing the meaning of “Sola Scriptura” from the original founder Martin Luther’s meaning. I can only lead you to the living waters, I cannot force anyone to drink the living waters, that is between your will and God’s will. If you are open to the “Truth” and not allow pride to hinder the Holy Spirit from revealing God’s Truth, I pray the Holy Spirit give you eyes to see, and ears to hear these spiritual realities that the world cannot understand and refuse to hear matters that pertain to the Spirit…

Peace be with you

 

[With_Questions]

Response;
Truthfully, I am not interested in proving “Truth” by disproving a man made “Sola Scriptura” theology. “Sola Scriptura” has not and will not survive the test of time. You have already proven this by changing the meaning of “Sola Scriptura” from the original founder Martin Luther’s meaning. I can only lead you to the living waters, I cannot force anyone to drink the living waters, that is between your will and God’s will. If you are open to the “Truth” and not allow pride to hinder the Holy Spirit from revealing God’s Truth, I pray the Holy Spirit give you eyes to see, and ears to hear these spiritual realities that the world cannot understand and refuse to hear matters that pertain to the Spirit…

Peace be with you

I am back after being tied up for 4 days.

I will respond to selected posts.

However this one is condescension. I will not be responding any more to condescension.

 

[With_Questions]

This is the type of response I was hoping for. Probably one of the best responses. Not condescension but logic. Since this seems to be the response that makes me think the most, this might be the only one I get to unless other responses make points that this one does not.

What you say here may be correct with respect to many Scriptural passages, but not with respect to 1 Tim 3:15 and Matt 16:18. By logical necessity those verses require that the church cannot teach truths opposed to Christianity. Why? Because anything else renders them meaningless. I will show you what I mean below.

Yes it does necessarily follow that God will protect the Church from teaching errors against Christianity. If you disagree, then you must affirm the following:

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.
2. The “gates of Hades” have not overpowered the church, even while the church teaches as truth doctrine opposed to Christianity - that is - doctrine of the devil.

Even if you swallow the reductio on either one or both of these absurdities, you have the task of demonstrating how these verses have meaning any longer.

OK. Let me ask some counter questions.

(1) What if the church from the beginning of the church age to the end of the church age never did teach error. Does it necessarily follow that the church was incapable of teaching error? Note that just because I get 100% in a math test, it does not necessarily follow that I am incapable of being incorrect in math.

(2) What if the church taught error for a period of time but later corrected itself before the end of the church age. Would it be logically and Scripturally impossible for the church to be the pillar and foundation of the truth? Would the gates of hell have overpowered the church in this case?

Second of all, are there alternative explanations of these verses that are not Scripturally impossible and not meaningless. I will provide some.

(1) the verb “overpower” (or prevail in other translations) in Matthew only indicate an utter and permanent defeat of the church from which she can not recover.

(2) “pillar and foundation of the truth” represents God’s plan for the church. However it still is possible for the church to thwart Gods plan for the church, at least for a period of time.

I think these two alternative explanations are defendible and are the ones that I hold to personally.

I can probably come up with other alternatives given enough thought.

However whether any interpretations are provable is another issue. I am not going to get into proof.

I disagree. My definition of “the church” makes no difference to the arguments above, which is why I have not provided such a definition in this thread. “The church,” regardless of the definition, is still the pillar and foundation of truth against which the gates of Hades will not prevail. As demonstrated above, that means this church cannot teach as truth doctrines that are opposed to Christianity.

However, the church today is divided and these divisions teach doctrines that are in logical opposition to each other.

The only way that your interpretation can be true is if one and only one denomination today is “the church of Jesus Christ”, while every remaining denomination something less.

This might be the only post that I have time for today.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No, you misunderstood. As I understand it, present doctrine gives the Papacy infallible interpretive powers to decide which is correct in the event that scripture and tradition conflict.

Has there ever been a case where this has happened?

Or does present doctrine suggest that tradition, being derived from scripture, can never contradict the Bible.

Tradition does not conflict with scripture.

Nothing taught by the Church contradicts the bible.

 

[ryanoneil]

Hi With Questions,

If you can’t find time to respond to my other post, I understand how time consuming these forum discussions can be. I thought I’d address this part of your comments more. (Considering it is related to your conversation with tdgesq)

Furthermore, you have not proved what “The Church” is. It is apparant from observation that not all denominations agree. Therefore, if “The Church” is “All believers”, then it is apparant from observation that infallibility is logically impossible. So you must Scripturally prove (if you want to take this vein) that "The Church is one and only one denomination, you must identify (from Scripture) what that denomination is, and you must eliminate all other denominations from possibly being “The Church”.

Good luck with that one.

I hope you realize that logically disproving a theological proposition is a big order.

Knowing that there is one Church and who that church is are two different things. All we have to know that there “is” one Church and it logically follows that God’s promises are effective toward it. Knowing who the Church is is a different matter.

But he knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand. (Mat 12:25)

Unless you believe the Church will be laid waste, all the denominations you speak of cannot be part of the one Church. (Unless they come into the one fold.)

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:16)

This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:21-23)

Notice in verse 21 that Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. The oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that we see today. I believe Jesus’ prayer is perfectly effective per John 12:48-50, and the evidence is the unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.

You also brought up:

So you have to answer the same questions. To Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura you have to eliminate the possibility that any precious promise in Gods Holy Word that seems to promise God revealing truth to the people of God and protecting the people of God from error do not have implicit and explicit conditions on them found elsewhere in Gods Word (just like healing), and that these promises are not ultimately subject to the will of God (just like healing).

This same logic you use here can be applied who is church and who is not. I’m not even going to attempt to quote all the conditions of belonging the Church, but we know there is one. It logically follows that the promises of God to the one Church are effective. Knowing who is the Church is a different issue.

 

[With_Questions]

We have to do no such thing. In the OP you said "The Bible is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. Scripture says otherwise.

so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens. (Eph 3:10)

If it didn’t happen infallibly through the church, then the manifold wisdom of God wasn’t really made know. Therefore the Bible disproves that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

But this Scripture passage doesn’t contain the word infallible or have other similar phrase. You are simply assuming that it can not be done if the church is capable of being incorrect.

An assumption is not proof.

 

[With_Questions]

Hi With Questions,

Knowing that there is one Church and who that church is are two different things. All we have to know that there “is” one Church and it logically follows that God’s promises are effective toward it. Knowing who the Church is is a different matter.

But he knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand. (Mat 12:25)

Unless you believe the Church will be laid waste, all the denominations you speak of cannot be part of the one Church. (Unless they come into the one fold.)

This is interesting logic. Gimme some time to think about it (I do like to think). Still quite busy today.

 

[ryanoneil]

But this Scripture passage doesn’t contain the word infallible or have other similar phrase. You are simply assuming that it can not be done if the church is capable of being incorrect.

An assumption is not proof.

I think I understand what you are saying. (maybe we are using different definitions) What I’m saying is that sometimes the church speaks infallibly and other times fallibly.

If the Church was not able to “infallibly” speak, a cheap knock off the truth would have been made known through the church instead of the actual manifold wisdom of God.
(And we could not safely rely on or be sure of the Bible’s truth)

This is interesting logic. Gimme some time to think about it (I do like to think). Still quite busy today.

Sure, take your time.

Peace

 

[With_Questions]

I think I understand what you are saying. (maybe we are using different definitions) What I’m saying is that sometimes the church speaks infallibly and other times fallibly.

If the Church was not able to “infallibly” speak, a cheap knock off the truth would have been made known through the church instead of the actual manifold wisdom of God.
(And we could not safely rely on or be sure of the Bible’s truth)

Remember one thing though. Infallible means unable to be incorrect.

It is possible for the church to speak with full authority, correctness, and clarity (in other words be 100% spot on) without it being incapable of being incorrect. In fact even if the church were to do this consistently, it does not necessarily follow that it is incapable of being incorrect.

I may be a genius and ace every examination in college with a 100% score. This does not mean I am incapable of being incorrect.

You see all of these verses that to you all mean “unable to be incorrect” to me mean simply “able to be 100% spot on with full authority”. There is a big difference in concept in these definitions. There may or may not be a difference in actual results.

 

[With_Questions]

If your definition of sola scriptura is more like prima scriptura, then we are looking at two different doctrines. One is more Biblical than the other.

Somehow I missed this.

Good point.

I will ask the general audience here. See the definition of Sola Scriptura provided in the opening post. To Catholics, is this really Sola Scriptura?

From what I have read, this is Sola Scriptura under some definitions, and is not Sola Scriptura under others.

Not surprising since (as I have said many times before) “Sola Scriptura” is just a nice two word phrase without a verb and hence without any meaning in itself.

 

[ralphinal]

Somehow I missed this.

Good point.

I will ask the general audience here. See the definition of Sola Scriptura provided in the opening post. To Catholics, is this really Sola Scriptura?

From what I have read, this is Sola Scriptura under some definitions, and is not Sola Scriptura under others.

Not surprising since (as I have said many times before) “Sola Scriptura” is just a nice two word phrase without a verb and hence without any meaning in itself.

IN my mind, sola scriptura says all you need is the Bible and nothing else. You don’t even need anyone to tell you what the Bible means as it is 100% self-interpreting. Taken to the extreme forms, no minister or preacher is needed or desired or only one translation (KJV only) is actually the word of God and the rest is garbage.

Luther probably would have been more prima or soli (depending on whose terms you use), accepting tradition when it is supported by scripture. Now, what is meant be supported differs to different people. Some say it must be outright mentioned, preferably in multiple places. Others say that as long as it is clear what is being discussed, alluded to is acceptable.

A true hard-line sola scriptura person cannot accept the Church’s definition of the Trinity, as it is not listed as such in Scripture. A Soli (prima) scriptura person may or may not be able to, because even then it is only alluded to.

However, most non-Catholic, non-Orthodox DO accept the Church’s understandings without thinking about the conundrum it presents.

 

[ryanoneil]

Remember one thing though. Infallible means unable to be incorrect.

It is possible for the church to speak with full authority, correctness, and clarity (in other words be 100% spot on) without it being incapable of being incorrect. In fact even if the church were to do this consistently, it does not necessarily follow that it is incapable of being incorrect.

I may be a genius and ace every examination in college with a 100% score. This does not mean I am incapable of being incorrect.

You see all of these verses that to you all mean “unable to be incorrect” to me mean simply “able to be 100% spot on with full authority”. There is a big difference in concept in these definitions. There may or may not be a difference in actual results.

I agree that infallibility means exemption from the possibility of error because it was Divinely guaranteed by Christ’s promise to His Church. As far as I know it only deals with “objective” “definitive” “teachings”

A different way of saying it is: the correct interpretation is effectively safeguarding the truths already revealed. I don’t know how to say it any other way.

 

[tdgesq]

OK. Let me ask some counter questions.

Asking questions in response isn’t an answer to the questions that were asked. But I will answer these, so long as you agree to answer the two that I asked above. I will trust your good faith on this.

(1) What if the church from the beginning of the church age to the end of the church age never did teach error. Does it necessarily follow that the church was incapable of teaching error?.

No it does not. It would just mean that the church did not teach error from the beginning to the end.

(2) What if the church taught error for a period of time but later corrected itself before the end of the church age. Would it be logically and Scripturally impossible for the church to be the pillar and foundation of the truth? Would the gates of hell have overpowered the church in this case?

It would be impossible for the church to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. The gates of hell would have overpowered the church.

Second of all, are there alternative explanations of these verses that are not Scripturally impossible and not meaningless. I will provide some.

(1) the verb “overpower” (or prevail in other translations) in Matthew only indicate an utter and permanent defeat of the church from which she can not recover.

That is not the plain meaning of that term. I can be overpowered by an attacker even if only temporarily. If you want to concede that the church can be overpowered by the gates of hell for a temporal duration, then do so. In that case, the church cannot be trusted.

(2) “pillar and foundation of the truth” represents God’s plan for the church. However it still is possible for the church to thwart Gods plan for the church, at least for a period of time.

Then the pillar and foundation of truth that is the church can teach heresy. If that is what you believe, then concede it. If that is the case, then the church cannot be trusted.

I think these two alternative explanations are defendible and are the ones that I hold to personally.

I can probably come up with other alternatives given enough thought.

Any other alternatives would be intellectually dishonest ones, unless you truly change your mind about what you have already posted.

However, the church today is divided and these divisions teach doctrines that are in logical opposition to each other.

The only way that your interpretation can be true is if one and only one denomination today is “the church of Jesus Christ”, while every remaining denomination something less.

That is correct insofar as the teaching authority of the church is concerned.