Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[With_Questions]

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.

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

Now some groundrules and notes.

For your information I have lifted this definition from my church web site. This definition is compatible with the book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith Mathison. You may find a review of his book here. However, I do not have access to the book and have not read it, so I am not going to defend every sentence of the book even if I desire to. I post the book reference in the vein that it seems to be well written and it seems to be a book that at least I can agree with on all of the major principles.

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.

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.

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).

For the time being I will accept any accepted version of the Bible, but I will accept only those books which are common between Catholics and Protestants. If you want to go into the original languages, please be aware that I am not in position to verify any claims from original languages and will only consider original language arguments (1) if you are in fact an expert in original languages and can verify your claims or (2) if you can verify you claim of original languages is not controversial and agreed by both Catholics and Protestants.

 

[tGette]

“We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.” - 2 Thessalonians 3:6

 

[With_Questions]

“We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.” - 2 Thessalonians 3:6

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.)

 

[jkarp]

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.

Now some groundrules and notes.

For your information I have lifted this definition from my church web site. This definition is compatible with the book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith Mathison. You may find a review of his book here. However, I do not have access to the book and have not read it, so I am not going to defend every sentence of the book even if I desire to. I post the book reference in the vein that it seems to be well written and it seems to be a book that at least I can agree with on all of the major principles.

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.

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.

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).

For the time being I will accept any accepted version of the Bible, but I will accept only those books which are common between Catholics and Protestants. If you want to go into the original languages, please be aware that I am not in position to verify any claims from original languages and will only consider original language arguments (1) if you are in fact an expert in original languages and can verify your claims or (2) if you can verify you claim of original languages is not controversial and agreed by both Catholics and Protestants.

Interesting concept thread here, but it’s pretty much just an attempt to bait. I.e., sola scripture is in and of itselft non-scriptural so using scripture to prove or disprove is a foolish debate (which is condemned in the chapter before the one that you cited). On that note, the logic of the conclusion you draw from your cited verse is flawed. The verse says, “All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching . . .” It does not say that scripture is all that is God-breathed and useful for teaching (syllogistical fallacy). Here’s a question: What scripture(s) was Peter and Paul using during their ministry?

 

[MrStain]

**1 Thess 2:13 **
For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

 

[With_Questions]

Interesting concept thread here, but it’s pretty much just an attempt to bait. I.e., sola scripture is in and of itselft non-scriptural so using scripture to prove or disprove is a foolish debate (which is condemned in the chapter before the one that you cited). On that note, the logic of the conclusion you draw from your cited verse is flawed. The verse says, “All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching . . .” It does not say that scripture is all that is God-breathed and useful for teaching (syllogistical fallacy). Here’s a question: What scripture(s) was Peter and Paul using during their ministry?

Actually my purpose here is not to bait.

The idea for this thread is actually a spin-off of the “Ag_not prove Catholicism incorrect”. In that thread I claimed that by the same standard used to prove Catholicism incorrect, Catholics could not prove Sola Scriptura incorrect. One Catholic claimed that he could. So I am curious how that can be done.

If I have any purpose in this thread it is to illustrate that any thread “prove logically incorrect” is either very difficult or impossible.

And yes I know that the Scripture cited does not logically prove the theological proposition as logically correct. But I am not interested in proving the theological proposition in this sentence because I for one know that logically proving something as either true or false is very difficult.

And in defense of my church, I don’t think this Scripture was intended as logical proof.

 

[jkarp]

Actually my purpose here is not to bait.

The idea for this thread is actually a spin-off of the “Ag_not prove Catholicism incorrect”. In that thread I claimed that by the same standard used to prove Catholicism incorrect, Catholics could not prove Sola Scriptura incorrect. One Catholic claimed that he could. So I am curious how that can be done.

If I have any purpose in this thread it is to illustrate that any thread “prove logically incorrect” is either very difficult or impossible.

And yes I know that the Scripture cited does not logically prove the theological proposition as logically correct. But I am not interested in proving the theological proposition in this sentence because I for one know that logically proving something as either true or false is very difficult.

And in defense of my church, I don’t think this Scripture was intended as logical proof.

Fair enough

 

[With_Questions]

**1 Thess 2:13 **
For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

Very good.

But for this verse to logically disprove the provided definition of Sola Scriptura you have to (1) prove that the “Word of God” which was heard" is unique from the Bible. Otherwise you have a redundancy. (2) prove a way of identifying this “Word of God” which is unique from the Bible 2000 or so years after it was delivered by the apostles. Otherwise it is possible that Sola Scriptura (the above definition) was not true during the time of the apostles but is true today.

 

[elvisman]

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.

Now some groundrules and notes.

For your information I have lifted this definition from my church web site. This definition is compatible with the book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith Mathison. You may find a review of his book here. However, I do not have access to the book and have not read it, so I am not going to defend every sentence of the book even if I desire to. I post the book reference in the vein that it seems to be well written and it seems to be a book that at least I can agree with on all of the major principles.

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.

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.

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).

For the time being I will accept any accepted version of the Bible, but I will accept only those books which are common between Catholics and Protestants. If you want to go into the original languages, please be aware that I am not in position to verify any claims from original languages and will only consider original language arguments (1) if you are in fact an expert in original languages and can verify your claims or (2) if you can verify you claim of original languages is not controversial and agreed by both Catholics and Protestants.

Your challenge comes with way too many conditions.
When the opposite question is posed to Protestants, it doesn’t come with all of the baggage that your challenge does.

I could ask you whether or not you can prove that Obama was elected president and place so many restrictions on you that it would be impossible.

Your dilemma is this:
Is Sola Scriptura biblical or not?
The overwhelming evidence shows that it is not but you refuse to accept it.

 

[With_Questions]

Your challenge comes with way too many conditions.

Such as…

I hope that what I am doing is imposing the same conditions that are imposed on the disprove Catholicism thread.

Proove is a very precise word. You prove something by showing that it is logically impossible. That is what I am trying to ask you to do. The same way that you are asking Protestants to do in that other thread.

When the opposite question is posed to Protestants, it doesn’t come with all of the baggage that your challenge does.

Au Contraire. I think I am putting the same restrictions as found in the other bug. Proove is a very precise word.

I could ask you whether or not you can prove that Obama was elected president and place so many restrictions on you that it would be impossible.

Well I am sure that maybe you can do that. The issue is however is whether by using a comparable standard that what I am using it is impossible to prove Obama was elected president.

Your dilemma is this:
Is Sola Scriptura biblical or not?
**The overwhelming **evidence shows that it is not but you refuse to accept it.

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

Which is why I think a different standard other than logically prove is more appropriate for these type of discussions. My personal standard is sufficient evidence to believe.

Now I do have sufficient evidence to believe that either (1) a very general definition of Sola Scriptura as described in this thread or (2) a very nuanced definition of Sola Scriptura is true (now one might argue that these definitions of Sola Scriptura are really Prima Scriptura but that is a separate issue). However, I do concede that the sufficient evidence standard has a high degree of subjectivity interwoven into it and I prefer not to wade into the realm of subjectivity here.

But in this thread I am asking that Sola Scriptura be proven as logically false (the same as in the other thread). I take it that you do not think it can be done either.

 

[elvisman]

Such as…

I hope that what I am doing is imposing the same conditions that are imposed on the disprove Catholicism thread.

Proove is a very precise word. You prove something by showing that it is logically impossible. That is what I am trying to ask you to do. The same way that you are asking Protestants to do in that other thread.

Au Contraire. I think I am putting the same restrictions as found in the other bug. Proove is a very precise word.

Well I am sure that maybe you can do that. The issue is however is whether by using a comparable standard that what I am using it is impossible to prove Obama was elected president.

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

Which is why I think a different standard other than logically prove is more appropriate for these type of discussions. My personal standard is sufficient evidence to believe.

Now I do have sufficient evidence to believe that either (1) a very general definition of Sola Scriptura as described in this thread or (2) a very nuanced definition of Sola Scriptura is true (now one might argue that these definitions of Sola Scriptura are really Prima Scriptura but that is a separate issue). However, I do concede that the sufficient evidence standard has a high degree of subjectivity interwoven into it and I prefer not to wade into the realm of subjectivity here.

But in this thread I am asking that Sola Scriptura be proven as logically false (the same as in the other thread). I take it that you do not think it can be done either.

**MrStain **and TGette have already given you proof texts against SS which you have rationalized away.

My** point is that you can rationalize away anything, including the fact that Obama (unfortunately) will be our next president.**

Here are a few more passages that I’m sure you’ll dance around.

John 21:25
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

2 Thess. 2:14-15
***“To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. ***
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

2 Tim. 3:8
***“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth–people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith.” ***
(Show me where these names are mentioned in the Old Testament. St. Paul was relying on ORAL tradition as he commands us to do as well)

I would also argue that Matt. 18:15-18, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:13-14 refute the claim that the written word is the final authority.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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.

.

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[on_fire]

in the following bible verse you supplied

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

does it say that Scripture was all we needed to go by or useful?big difference wouldnt you agree? and what Scripture was Paul refering to with Timothy?the ones he had read as a child.since none of the NT was written when Paul said this,he was refering to the OT.and more then likely the Septuaguint.therefore we must include the 7 books protestants threw out if we are to go by what Paul said to Timothy.so if you are going to go by Sola Scriptura then go the whole nine yards,right?

 

[on_fire]

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

well said my brother

 

[With_Questions]

Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

That is a nice Scripture. However it says nothing about the church being incapable of being incorrect which I assume is your point in posting this Scripture. If you can prove that the Bible clearly identifies another source that is incapable of being incorrect then you have disproved this definition of Sola Scriptura.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

And neither does that one.
John 20

21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

And neither does this one

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

And this one says that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not that it is incapable of being incorrect.
2 Thes 2

15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

I think I addressed this one previously.

Nice try though. However prooftexting is not the same as logical proof.

 

[With_Questions]

in the following bible verse you supplied

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

does it say that Scripture was all we needed to go by or useful?big difference wouldnt you agree?

I know that and addressed it previously.

I never claimed that this Scripture is an adequate prooftext for Sola Scriptura. I was just doing a cut and paste from our church’s statement of faith.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That is a nice Scripture. However it says nothing about the church being incapable of being incorrect which I assume is your point in posting this Scripture. If you can prove that the Bible clearly identifies another source that is incapable of being incorrect then you have disproved this definition of Sola Scriptura.

The point of this passage is that Jesus says LISTEN to the Church, NOT, consult scripture.

And neither does that one.
John 20

 

[With_Questions]

These passages clearly contradict sola scriptura because they reveal other sources of truth and guidance.

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

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

 

[ncgolf]

Now I do have sufficient evidence to believe that either (1) a very general definition of Sola Scriptura as described in this thread or (2) a very nuanced definition of Sola Scriptura is true (now one might argue that these definitions of Sola Scriptura are really Prima Scriptura but that is a separate issue). However, I do concede that the sufficient evidence standard has a high degree of subjectivity interwoven into it and I prefer not to wade into the realm of subjectivity here.

But in this thread I am asking that Sola Scriptura be proven as logically false (the same as in the other thread). I take it that you do not think it can be done either.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[on_fire]

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