Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[cfrancis]

Really. They seem contradictory to me.

The definition by James White is compatible with this thread and my beliefs. The bible.ca one is “way-over-the-top”. The other two take it a little further than I am comfortable with.

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

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

I am not sure what you are saying and how this relates to the Bible being the only rule of faith that is incapalbe of being incorrect.

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

For that matter I totally miss how this necessarily follows from the premise. I must either be thickheaded or tired today.

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

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Yes, this is possible

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

Not many people will find this reasonable unless you can provide a very good explanation for how it is possible. We will see if you have done that.

In the same way that it is possible that the church “have no spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Ephesians 5:27) and at the same time it is possible for the church to sin, thereby producting spots and/or wrinkles.

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

Since obviously by empirical observation the phrase “having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing” does not mean that the church is incapble of sinning, if you want to disprove my definition of Sola Scriptura on the basis of 1 Timothy 3:15, you have to prove why it is impossible to interpret this phrase that refers to the church in the same way that Ephesians 5:27 is interpreted.

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

Yes I do affirm this also. In the same sense that “The gates of Hell” have not overpowered the church, even when the church practices the conduct of hell, gross sin and immorality.

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

If you want to prove Sola Scriptura to be Scripturally impossible on the basis of Matthew 16:18, you must prove why this verse means it is impossible for the church to teach error while at the same time it obviously is possible for the church to sin.

No, the Church can sin. It just can’t teach it as Christian truth.

This may be partially repetitious, but why “must” I interpret “the gates of hell shall not overpower the church” as "it is impossible for the church to teach the doctrine of hell when obviously this same Scripture does not mean that church can not practice the “conduct of hell”.

Because it has to mean something! You telling me that it doesn’t mean this, that or the other thing doesn’t tell me what it means. You don’t think it means the Church is incapable of sinning. Fine. You don’t think it means the Church cannot teach heresy. Fine. What does it mean?

So first of all I think that the premise that teaching error necessarily means that the gates of hell have overpowered the church is not provable.

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

Second of all, other translations (KJV for example) use the word prevail instead of overpower. Prevail in normal English usage only refers to a status at the end.

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

But one comment. It does not follow that simply because a source is capable of being incorrect that the source can not be trusted. We obviously trust our doctors with our lives even though the last I knew they were capable of being incorrect.

Your analogy would be apt if only Jesus and St. Paul said that our doctors were the pillar and foundation and that the gates would not prevail against them.

 

[cfrancis]

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.

To be technical and stick with the meaning of infallibility, this really should read “capable of teaching false doctrines opposed to Christianity”. It is logically possible for the church to be capable of teaching false doctrines not actually do it. But anyway…

Yes, this is possible.

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

 

[wisdomseeker]

To jump in here as a Presbyterian, I don’t think you can either prove (depending on what you mean by that) or disprove Sola Scriptura as is the case for many if not most issues of faith. I think you might have a preponderance of evidence, but rarely beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a matter of faith, and I have no problem with that regardless of your denomination.

Me, I can buy into Matheson’s definition of Sola Scripture, but not Solo Scriptura - the Bible ALONE and individual interpretation. Even Luther’s Bible, which dropped several books from canon, nevertheless included them under a section labeled “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read.”

my presbyterian friend told me once they dont care about history of the Church, they dont accept the sayings of the fathers of the Church. they dont care about the Oral Tradition of the Church. and etc…

that is what it means sole scripture. they only care about the Bible and their enterpretation.

sole scripture ignores everything and accept only what is written in the Bible. if it is not written than it is not true.

sole scripture believes they can enterepret SS for themselves therefore they dont need the Church(CC) to do it for them.

:bowdown2: :byzsoc:

 

[jkarp]

This is only true if a definition of Sola Scriptura is used that is different from the original post.

Please read the definition before you try to prove it false.

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

 

[cfrancis]

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

Interesting point.

This is only true if a definition of Sola Scriptura is used that is different from the original post.

Please read the definition before you try to prove it false.

From the OP:

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

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

 

[guanophore]

This challenge is to Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura.

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.

You will not get by with “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura”. It is not enough to state this is not taught in the Bible.

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

Neither will you get by with platitudes like the Canon argument. Please stick to the above definition and the Bible (as in the other thread).

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

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

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

I also must note that scripture cannot be an 'infallible rule". Fallibility presupposes qualities that are possesed of persons, not the Holy Writings. The will to act, discernment, intention etc are not qualities of scripture, and trying to make scripture “act” in ways it cannot demonstrates the artificial nature of the SS doctrine. Jesus gave authority to the Church because persons posess these qualities, not Holy Writings.

 

[jkarp]

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

Right, and since they didn’t have a written (ergo: scriptura) new testament, if they taught that scripture *alone *is useful for teaching, they would have had to stick to it and thus not proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ. With all of this in mind, we know that they did proclaim the Good News (not a part of scripture until much later) thus beginning a sacred oral Tradition that has been passed down to us today.

 

[guanophore]

Very good. You are citing Scripture. That is what I asked.

Now you would logically disprove this definition of Sola Scriptura if (1) you can logically prove from Scripture that tradition received from the apostles is incapable of being incorrect (2) prove that Scripture identifies a clear way to identify tradition received from the apostles as opposed to tradition received from other sources (tradition of men). (3) prove that we are not dealing with a redundancy here. This tradition received from the apostles must be unique from the Bible.

And of course by Scripturally disprove I mean that it is impossible for alternative explanations / interpretations to be true and the Bible remain the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Prooftexting is not the same as Scripturally disproving.

(Yes I notice in the other thread that the Protestants there are prone to using the same techniques that I am forewarning you do not constitute logical Scriptural proof against.)

LOL



I see that you need to continue adding “rules”.

You are asking us to use logic to disprove something that does not emanate from logic! SS was developed to justify rebellion against the authorities of the Catholic Church. It was done to find some other valid rule of faith to supercede the corruption that was being witness by the inventors.

Back to the OP:

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.

Here is the thing. You are starting out with a premise that you have not substantiated. In order for SS to have any merit, you must first demonstrate “what is the word of God”? You clearly cannot establish this from the contents of Scripture itself.

This alone testifies that there is a higher authority.

Furthermore, though Catholics agree that Scripture is the Word of God, we do so because of Sacred Tradition, which you reject as an adequate authority. You are still left with the problem of “infallible rule”, something that it is impossible for a text to do. Holy as the Word of God is, it was never intended to “rule” believers, who are under the rule of Christ, the Head of the Church, and those authorities that He provided. It was those authorities that produced, protected, promulgated, and published those Scriptures. They did this because Jesus gave the C’hurch the infallible rule, enabling them to do so.

Scriptures cannot “rule” because they do not have the essential qualities necessary for “ruling”, which belong only to persons.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here is the thing. You are starting out with a premise that you have not substantiated. In order for SS to have any merit, you must first demonstrate “what is the word of God”? You clearly cannot establish this from the contents of Scripture itself.

That’s it in a nutshell. We were asked to scripturally disprove that which was not substantiated. Many scriptures were provided by Catholics, only to be rejected or picked apart so a particular view could be maintained by those who wish it were so. No scriptures were provided to support that which was and is unsubstantiated, other than the one stating scriptures were “useful”. Useful is a far cry from sufficient or with total authority.

This appears to be a you can’t disprove it, according to a private interpretation, therefore it must be true, even though it cannot be supported scripturally itself.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

This challenge is to Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura.

Umm, no, debates don’t work that way. It’s inherently wrong to ask us to prove a negative; since in this particular thread you are stating that Sola Scriptura is correct, the onus is really on you to prove it so (burden of proof).

It’s poor form to start with a conclusion, irrespective if it is right or wrong, and go from there. The conclusion comes last, not first.

Furthermore, how is one to “prove” their position if you only allow them to use texts/ sources etc. that Protestants also use? That’s a considerable handicap to impose, and you haven’t provided a reason why such sources are unacceptable.

This appears to be a you can’t disprove it, according to a private interpretation, therefore it must be true, even though it cannot be supported scripturally itself.

Good pick-up. I’ve seen this “appeal to ignorance” premise used frequently (in debates on all kinds of topics), it’s a logical fallacy.

 

[ryanoneil]

Hi WQ, I hope you are having a blessed Sunday.

So in the spirit of brainstorming, let me propose some alternative logic to “The Bible says that a house divided can not stand, therefore one denomination must be the one true church”. Actually for the sake of space I will propose only a few alternatives that I consider to be the best with their supporting argument that I have not yet eliminated.

We are getting into the mysterious nature of the Church again. God’s mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time. I don’t know how to approach your alternatives, so I’ll just put this scripture out there for consideration.

He proposed another parable to them. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Mat 13:24-30)

But what I disagree with is that all of this “proves” that necessarily one and only one denomination is “The church”.

It may prove that the divisions that did occur in the church are outside of God’s purposes for the church. At least I will not argue otherwise. But to say that God responded to the divisions by arbitrarily choosing one side over the other, it does not necessarily follow.

I don’t know that it is a matter of God responding to divisions by choosing sides. Christ didn’t build his Church on denominations.

I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:10-13)

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil; (Rom 16:17-19)

Two comments.

In order to Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura (my definition) by these means, it is not sufficient to believe that one and only one denomination is the Church. That one denomination must be a denomination that believes itself to be infallible.

Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority in (Matt 16:19; 18:18). This authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. It also says that the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith.

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Second of all, if I were to come to the belief that one and only one denomination must Scripturally be the exclusive church of Jesus Christ, if I could not identify this one denomination through the same Scriptures, that would be enough to cast severe doubts in my mind whether my initial Scriptural logic is correct.

I could go down this road if you like.

Peace

 

[ryanoneil]

I remember when I first noticed that. Now I always consider 1st Corinthians to be 2nd Corinthians and 2nd Corinthians to be 3rd Corinthians.

How about this one?

And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea. (Col 4:16)

This verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon.

 

[With_Questions]

I can’t keep up with all of this.

But just to backtrack one bit.

This thread was a response thread to a thread a while back “Prove Catholicism Wrong”. In this thread Protestants were invited to prove Catholicism wrong (more specifically one point of Catholicism wrong…their choosing) using the Scriptures.

Of course the standard of proof was logical proof. This is a very high standard, I will discuss later what this is imho.

And not surprisingly the Protestants on this thread who were suckered into responding could not logically prove one point of Catholicism wrong. I was not surprised, because logically proving something incorrect is much more difficult than it seems.

My one post on this thread was something to the extent that I am not going to try to logically prove Catholicism wrong because I knew this was much more difficult than it seemed. I wasn’t sure it was even possible to do, and if possible I knew that I lacked this skill set.

My one caveat was that by the same standard they are using for Protestants to proving Catholicism false, they could not prove Sola Scriptura false. One Catholic responded that he most certainly could. Since I was curious how he could, I started this thread.

He has not responded to this thread.

(continued)

 

[With_Questions]

I can’t keep up with all of this.

But just to backtrack one bit.

This thread was a response thread to a thread a while back “Prove Catholicism Wrong”. In this thread Protestants were invited to prove Catholicism wrong (more specifically one point of Catholicism wrong…their choosing) using the Scriptures.

Of course the standard of proof was logical proof. This is a very high standard, I will discuss later what this is imho.

And not surprisingly the Protestants on this thread who were suckered into responding could not logically prove one point of Catholicism wrong. I was not surprised, because logically proving something incorrect is much more difficult than it seems.

My one post on this thread was something to the extent that I am not going to try to logically prove Catholicism wrong because I knew this was much more difficult than it seemed. I wasn’t sure it was even possible to do, and if possible I knew that I lacked this skill set.

My one caveat was that by the same standard they are using for Protestants to proving Catholicism false, they could not prove Sola Scriptura false. One Catholic responded that he most certainly could. Since I was curious how he could, I started this thread.

He has not responded to this thread.

(continued)

 

[With_Questions]

Anyway, yesterday (while I was having internet issues) I was pondering the question on how exactly do you logically disprove a theological proposition Scripture.

At this point I have only come up with two ways.

(1) You find a Scripture passage that directly contradicts your theological proposition. For example if you want to say that it is ok Scripturally to whack (Tony Soprano) your neighbor, the ten commandments would contradict this.

(2) If you want to argue indirectly, somewhere you must find Scripture that directly shows your interpretation is the one and only logical possible interpretation. Otherwise your Scripture that indirectly makes your case is subject to multiple logical interpretations and you have disproved nothing.

Now maybe you can do this by directly disprooving all of the other logical interpretations that come your way. But this might not be quite enough because the correct interpretation might be one that has not been considered.

The same thing holds for logically proving something Scripturally.

Now this is a very high standard that even our legal system does not adhere to. They adhere to “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases and “preponderance of evidence” in civil cases.

However, those that adjucate these cases (either the jury or judge) must be free of bias. Unfortunately, when we argue Christianity over the internet, everybody brings their biases to the table. Therefore none of us is really in a position to adjucate whether “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of evidence” standard is met.

I try not to engage in arguing Scripture when the metrics are “preponderance of evidence”. I will share why I believe why I do, but if someone disagrees, I’ll probably let it ride. I know that for myself I am not incapable of being incorrect, and who knows; maybe given enough good evidence I might change my mind.

Ultimately people believe something not because it is logically proved to them but because they have good and sufficient reason to believe so. Often this good and sufficient reason is based on large part upon personal experience and personal observation as much as an objective study of Scripture.

For example on my part, just to pick one example, I have observed Christians getting themselves into trouble by taking their pet Scripture passage and then overreaching their own interpretations of said passage.

For example they lift passages out of Scripture that indicate by His stripes we are healed and and whatever you ask in my name I will do for you and many other Scriptures of this type and then overreach and assume that divine healing is an automatic for God’s children provided you have faith. I have seen people almost die because of this.

And this is not the only case. Other folks lift the passage out of Scripture that nothing shall snatch God’s sheep out of the Father’s hand and conclude that personal sin is not a biggie. The thing is that passage does not explicitely say that you can’t snatch yourself out of the Father’s hand. That is an assumption that some choose to make but that can not be proved.

The point is that often issues are more complex than your favorite prooftext du jour makes them out to be.

So far I see overreaching in the texts submitted thus far for infallibility that supposedly logically prove it. But that could be me and my experiences I suppose.

 

[With_Questions]

I don’t know that it is a matter of God responding to divisions by choosing sides. Christ didn’t build his Church on denominations.

I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:10-13)

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil; (Rom 16:17-19)

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.

Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority in (Matt 16:19; 18:18). This authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. It also says that the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith.

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.

I could go down this road if you like.

Peace

I’ll pass for now. I am getting tired.

 

[With_Questions]

Umm, no, debates don’t work that way. It’s inherently wrong to ask us to prove a negative; since in this particular thread you are stating that Sola Scriptura is correct, the onus is really on you to prove it so (burden of proof).

See post 175 for why I started this thread. Somebody felt he could logically and Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura. This thread was started to give him a venue to do so (since I did not want to sidetrack another thread).

If it is inherently wrong to ask y’all to prove a negative, then why the thread asking Protestants to prove a negative.

I have no interest in proving Sola Scriptura correct.

Some things just aren’t provable either way. Sorry.

 

[With_Questions]

That’s it in a nutshell. We were asked to scripturally disprove that which was not substantiated.

See post 175. This is really no different than what Protestants were asked to do.

Many scriptures were provided by Catholics, only to be rejected or picked apart so a particular view could be maintained by those who wish it were so.

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

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

No scriptures were provided to support that which was and is unsubstantiated, other than the one stating scriptures were “useful”. Useful is a far cry from sufficient or with total authority.

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

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

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

This appears to be a you can’t disprove it, according to a private interpretation, therefore it must be true, even though it cannot be supported scripturally itself.

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

 

[With_Questions]

LOL



I see that you need to continue adding “rules”.

Is this condescension. I do not respond to condescension.

You are asking us to use logic to disprove something that does not emanate from logic! SS was developed to justify rebellion against the authorities of the Catholic Church. It was done to find some other valid rule of faith to supercede the corruption that was being witness by the inventors.

This is your interpretation of history.

If you can find an unbiased historical source that agrees with you (rebellion against the authorities and the like) then maybe your interpretation has credibility.

Back to the OP:
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.

Here is the thing. You are starting out with a premise that you have not substantiated. In order for SS to have any merit, you must first demonstrate “what is the word of God”? You clearly cannot establish this from the contents of Scripture itself.

Again, I have no interest in logically proving or disproving Sola Scriptura.

If you were to say that Sola Scriptura (my definition) can not be logically, Scripturally disproved, then we have no argument (in this thread). If you think that it can logically, Scripturally be disproved, then I am curious how it can.

Furthermore, though Catholics agree that Scripture is the Word of God, we do so because of Sacred Tradition, which you reject as an adequate authority. You are still left with the problem of “infallible rule”, something that it is impossible for a text to do. Holy as the Word of God is, it was never intended to “rule” believers, who are under the rule of Christ, the Head of the Church, and those authorities that He provided. It was those authorities that produced, protected, promulgated, and published those Scriptures. They did this because Jesus gave the C’hurch the infallible rule, enabling them to do so.

And of course if you can logically Scripturally prove this, you have disproved by definition Sola Scriptura.