A
AshleyBelle
Guest
You want to “disprove” a subject…using scripture…
That is not even a scripturally derived idea?
I could make up the idea that pigs have wings, and then ask you to DISPROVE it in scripture. Could you do it?
- Status
That is not even a scripturally derived idea?
W
With_Questions
Guest
Remember this thread is my spinoff of the other thread here.
Well in the other thread Protestants were asked to disprove Catholicism.
Catholics do not claim that their distinct doctrines are provable in Scripture. I am not claiming that Sola Scriptura is provable in Scripture either.
Catholics claim their distinct doctrines can be inferred in Scripture. To the extent that Catholics make this claim about say “The Assumption of Mary”, I will claim that my one sentence definition can be inferred in Scripture (actually I think the case is much stronger but I will not go there since it is an exercise in subjectivity).
I might have not made it clear since sometimes I can be communication challenged. But my basic point here is that if Protestants can not logically Scripturally disprove (the standard in that thread) Catholic distinct doctrines, neither can Catholics logically Scripturally disprove Protestant distinct doctrines.
A
AshleyBelle
Guest
Catholics don’t begin with the presupposition that all doctrine must be PROVABLE in scripture though… Only that it be supported in scripture, or that it supports scripture itself. And that it may not contradict scripture.
The Bible is not the sole authority for a Catholic, the Church is.
Jesus didn’t come to give us a book, He came and left us with a Church
R
ralphinal
Guest
The basic difference, however, is that if you cannot prove from Scripture that Scripture is the only rule of Faith, then it cannot be the only rule of faith.
If we were discussing sola fide, for example, it would be different.
W
With_Questions
Guest
That makes absolutely no sense.
Just because something is not provable, it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.
Even in mathematics, I recall reading that there are a small number of underlying assumptions that are not provable and must simply be accepted.
For an exercise, try proving to an agnostic or atheist the existence of God. Just because you can not do this does not mean that God does not exist.
A
AshleyBelle
Guest
You’re right to say just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it does not exist. But when you start with the premise that the Bible is the only source of authority…and then you aren’t able to PROVE that without going to some source OUTSIDE of the Bible.then you’re not saying the Bible is the only infallible source. Some infallible source had to TELL you the Bible was true…and that infallible source is the Church
I
Ilroy
Guest
Mt. 18:
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Seems pretty clear that if something is declared bound in Heaven which had been declared bound on earth by the earthly leader of the Church, the Pope (Peter first), then it means the Church is infallible.
W
With_Questions
Guest
Well I don’t think Protestants believe that all doctrine must be PROVABLE in scripture either. If they do, I haven’t seen it. I don’t personally believe that either.
For me however, I want to know that a given doctrine must be the absolute best interpretation of Scripture possible. Given two choices, one with strong Scriptural support and another with weak, I will prefer the one with strong.
The sentence in the OP did not claim the Bible is the sole authority.
This tends to be a platitude. If you believe in the eternal Christ, yes He did give us the gift of Scripture.Jesus didn’t come to give us a book, He came and left us with a Church
A
AshleyBelle
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly with that last statement
But I think all too often it is left out, that He gave us the gift of scripture THROUGH the gift of His Church.
God bless!
R
ralphinal
Guest
With Questions, I think that we are not speaking the same language. Let me try this.
I have a book that says “Rules of Football.” Now, the first line of the book says that all of the rules of football are contained within this book. I can say that this book contains all that I need to know the rules of football.
Now, if that same book did not ever say that it was a complete list of rules, I would need to verify it against something else.
I have no issue allowing Protestants to have doctrine that is not explicitly found in Scripture. None at all. However, sola scriptura cannot be one of those doctrines. If you claim that the Bible is all you need, and the Bible itself does not confirm it, you are trapped by your own words. Now, if your position is that the Bible has primacy over tradition, that is a different argument.
I have a book that says “Rules of Football.” Now, the first line of the book says that all of the rules of football are contained within this book. I can say that this book contains all that I need to know the rules of football.
Now, if that same book did not ever say that it was a complete list of rules, I would need to verify it against something else.
I have no issue allowing Protestants to have doctrine that is not explicitly found in Scripture. None at all. However, sola scriptura cannot be one of those doctrines. If you claim that the Bible is all you need, and the Bible itself does not confirm it, you are trapped by your own words. Now, if your position is that the Bible has primacy over tradition, that is a different argument.
W
With_Questions
Guest
But why do I need a source that is incapable of error to tell me that the Bible is true? Why can’t I just believe the Bible is true on the basis that my exterior source is authoritative and credible?You’re right to say just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it does not exist. But when you start with the premise that the Bible is the only source of authority…and then you aren’t able to PROVE that without going to some source OUTSIDE of the Bible.then you’re not saying the Bible is the only infallible source. Some infallible source had to TELL you the Bible was true…and that infallible source is the Church
I mean I believe my Doctor and he certainly is not incapable of being incorrect.
A
AshleyBelle
Guest
Because if the source was capable of error…then the Bible could be capable of error.
You may trust your doctor, but unless you know he is infallible, then the advice he gives you could be wrong.
Without an infallible church, we have no way of knowing the Bible is truly God’s word.
W
With_Questions
Guest
I
Ilroy
Guest
So, as was stated previoiusly, you care not to search out the truth…you have talked around EVERY bit of proof given to you…
peace be to you…
W
With_Questions
Guest
Oh…now I see what you are saying. Now back to the original post for the definition of Sola Scriptura I am working with.
The definition is not “The Bible is all you need”.
The definition is that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and conduct.
With the understanding that maybe that this could be cleaned up to something like “The Bible is the only inerrant rule of faith and conduct” and “We do not accept any sources that interpret the Bible as being incapable of error” (I know probably somebody really smart could word this better than myself).
Now one may argue that this definition is not Sola Scriptura, but that is another topic. It does seem to be compatible with “The Face of Sola Scriptura”.
W
With_Questions
Guest
More condescension.So, as was stated previoiusly, you care not to search out the truth…you have talked around EVERY bit of proof given to you…
peace be to you…
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
You earned it!
If whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, that means with regards to salvation, his word is law.
How do you interpret this promise?
P
prodigal-sun
Guest
Nope, it’s not just a platitude, Christ gave us a Curch (proven by scripture). THe Church gave us the bible.
The following quote is from your post #10. Logically impossible… I would have to say that all of the scripture that has been supplied to you on this thread shows logically that sola scriptura is more than a little unlikely if not all together impossible.
I pray, that through this thread a seed of doubt (in sola scritura) has been sown into your heart and you will study this question with an open heart & mind and come to the most logical conclusion.
“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.”
Peace!
R
ralphinal
Guest
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. First, does the Bible need interpretation or is it crystal clear at all times? If it needs interpretation, how can it be interpreted without introducing error? And how is this view a form of sola scriptura?
W
With_Questions
Guest
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.
- Status