Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[wisdomseeker]

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.

sola scripture?.. oh ye! what does that mean? and based on this, where does it say that everything Jesus said and did has all been written? unless you disregard is unimportant and of no value the things that Jesus did and said that has not been written but have been just spoken.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi:
I am getting very tired and mentally drained.

Arguing Christianity over the internet does this to me. I really should break this habit. I think I will go to bed.

my advice to you is that you keep in mind that we are not sola scripture believers and that our beliefs differ greatly.

this should make it easier for you in this forum.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi:
First of all I want to thank you for putting thought and intelligence in your response and for not lapsing into condescension.

Discussions such as these require more of us than condescension. All one has to do is to look at the very scripture, used by your Church, that started this discussion. Especially the part that says, “…teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” The hope that is in us is not condescending, neither should the sharing of that hope.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.

Just because Jesus tells the multitude to obey the scribes and Pharisees, it does not necessarily mean they are incapable of teaching error.

The Scriptures also tell us to obey our earthly governments. They are not incapable of being incorrect either.

But again somehow, somewhere you have to justify making the leap from “pillar and ground of the truth” to “incapable of teaching error in matter of faith and morals”.

Again, just because Christ tells us to take disputes to the church, it does necessarily follow that the church is incapable of being incorrect.

I’m not trying to argue, but explain the differences between the seat of Moses, the Church versus earthly governments, as I see them.

While the governments (of today not necessarily back then) make laws for for social good, or application of rules of conduct, they fail to provide rules of faith. What is spoken from the authority of the Church or the seat of Moses applies to the rules of faith and conduct.

I see a distinct difference in rendering unto Ceasar and do whatsoever they say. Obeying civil laws, as Christians, shares the hope that is within us as an example of what being a Christian is.

The rules of faith and conduct has Christ’s confidence of being truthful from from the Church or those in authority over the Church. Truth of God is infallible since truth cannot have multiple meanings. Christ knew He could protect His truth with His Holy Spirit, even through fallible men.

Sometimes, we have to step back and see what is literally happening when Christ spoke, or who He was speaking too. John 14 for example, while we can apply His teaching to our lives, it appears the Lord is specifically speaking to the Apostles whom He started His Church with. Please note He was not addressing multitudes in John 14.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
Joh 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

Again, I point out He was speaking to men who would eventually die a death of the flesh, yet he told them He would give another Paraclete that may abide with them for ever. I believe “them” is the Apostles of the Church and those who will succeed them. We know there are written instructions in the New Testament that speak of men being priests, bishops, etc.

I’ll admit the conversation is turning to the authority of the Church and apologize if it appears I’m trying to sway the topic of the thread. I’m not intentionally, it just seems a part of the big picture and should be addressed as the two are connected, scriptures and Church.

Jesus does supply the resource of the church to the body of Christ. That truth should not be in dispute.

Jesus, God, inspired the written word of God. His inspired word does supply the resource of the Church to the body of Christ.

Col 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Second of all, I see nothing in these Scriptures about the apostles assuming they are incapable of being incorrect. They might just be telling the church to heed what they say because they know they are authoritative and credible and they know that they are in a right relationship with God.

Did Peter not deny our Lord 3 times? Did Thomas not doubt our Lord? Did the Apostle not abandon the Lord in the garden at the time of Christ being taken?

I realize now, we are supposed to be finding some irrefutable evidence disproving a interpretation. According to today’s standards of proof, it might not be a realistic goal. All we can do is share our faiths and recognize we are all at different levels of growth in the spirit. I am not and cannot say who has grown more and would not presuppose myself to have an infallible knowledge. I learn new things all the time.

Thank you again for providing the thoughts that provoke us to read scriptures, research and reflect.

God Bless,

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

OK, it doesn’t mean these sources are incapable of being incorrect.

Truth can be received from a fallible source with the protection of the Holy Spirit at work, just as misinterpretation of truth can be received from an infallible source using the logic of men. Evidence of the latter is known when we receive multiple truths, through individual interpretations. Which one is truth and which are misinterpretations? We have to find a way to be of the same mind and judgment.

Catholics believe we should turn to the Holy men of the Church who have the authority to speak on matters of faith and conduct. But this thought leads us to the discussion of Apostolic succession, which is another part of truth in the fullness of truth. I am not trying to sway the discussion, but it appears to me there are many aspects to be considered when seeking the one truth.

There was only one Church for centuries, now there are many each with different doctrines based on an individual interpretation, all claiming to have the truth.

As you explained, in these discussions we can only explain the logic that leads us to our belief. Why things are the way they are, who can know?

**Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!
Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?
Rom 11:36 For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen. **

If we recognize there are different truths, we must continue to seek the one that is truth…maybe that’s the will of the Lord to keep us truly seeking Him until the end.

God Bless,

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So your argument is anything that was not explicitely taught by the apostles is false? Pardon me, but I seem to be having difficulty following your logical flow. Probably it is me being thickheaded (or tired).

How do you know this assumption is true? What is the difference between that logic and “unless it is found in the Bible it is false”?

If it was not explicitely taught by the apostles, what about the Trinity which was not formally defined until the 300s I think?

I could also mention stuff like the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception since I have no reason to believe the apostles taught those either. But I will be nice and refrain from that.

Your logic is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Church is. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ on earth, and Jesus is the head of his church in heaven. This colaborates with the function of authority when Jesus stated directly to Peter; “What you bind on earth I will bind in heaven, what you loose on earth I will loose in heaven”. See no “Sola Scriptura” to speak of here.

That being said, the stuff you mention is not new inventions from the Church, they are defined doctrines, that were already believed since the first Christians, this is where Sacred Oral Tradition comes in before the church put the bible together. Secondly the recorded councils that publicly defined or revealed these belief’s (what you call stuff) came under attack by heretics, including the already belief of the Trinity, so the church acted on her God given authority to bind and loose these doctrines against heretical teachings, and defined the trinity so as never to be questioned by her shepherd (apostolic successors) ever again.

Remember the Church came first before the bible. So “Sola Scriptura” from any definition does not overrule the body of Jesus Christ, but defines and supports the Church. So a christian cannot say “Sola Scriptura” or “Sola Iglesia” by any means.

If you drop the “Sola” from scriptura you will find the workings and miracles of the living God followed by signs and wonders in his body the Catholic church, who has the God given authority to interpet the Sacred Scripture to all the nations, tribes, peoples and tongues.

I can agree with you, that the bible (the Catholic church canonized) is the infallible word of God. The Word of God lives, the word of God is not just contained or limited to the “Sola Scriptura” interpretation you give or believe in. Whenever one places the “I” to a belief system automatically takes himself outside of “Sola Scriptura” because now that you added the “I” to your belief system, you stand alone outside of scripture making yourself “infallible” to the Word of God.

The Catholic church teaches all new “Revelation” ceased with the last living apostle John ( this quote takes much to be explained). Because the Catholic church was in existance from this early time, She was handed down the apostolic letters, and Sacred Traditions which includes the “Stuff” that are not recorded in Sacred Scripture but is revealed in Sacred Scripture, such as the “Trinity”. Catholic Popes, Saints spilled their own blood in Martyrdom so as to keep the teachings of Jesus and his apostles intact unchanged until today.

Sola Scriptura falls apart without the living authority of the Catholic (the apostolic successors in the Magisterium) church. Without the body (Catholic) the mouth(Holy Spirit) of scripture cannot speak, the body and the head are one, you cannot seperate them lest one die’s. So if you take “Sola Scriptura” you have many interpretations or “spokes persons” in the “I” believe to interpret division among believers.

Simply put, my logic stems from Jesus Christ, who still lives in his body the Catholic church,(not just “Sola Scriptura”) who defends his teachings even at the threat or result of death. The Catholic church has excercised her God given authority to interpret, define, and or reveal her apostolic Sacred Traditional teachings that are supported by Sacred Scripture, whenever they come under attack.

That is why these revealed or defined teachings come from the Catholic church not “Sola Scriptura” such as “Trinity”, “Immaculate Conception”, “incarnation”, “Eucharist” and all the others what you call “Stuff” appears to be new to those outside the Church Jesus built upon Peter, because these and others came under attack by heretics, or heretical teachings. The Catholic church defined these already belief’s handed down so again as to never have them challenged again ever, until Jesus Christ returns. That is why Jesus built his Church upon “Rock”.

To have “Sola Scriptura” you have no one with apostolic authority to teach, preach, and refute heresies with the Word of God. To possess “Truth” we need the Word of God living in his body the Church Jesus built upon Peter the Rock, which is today the Roman Catholic church.

Amen

Peace

 

[tdgesq]

How does being authoritative and credible work.

No, how is the church of Christ authoritative and credible if it is capable of teaching heresy?

If the Church is off doing its own thing (like burning anabaptists)

As opposed to teaching the error of rebaptism of those validly baptized as infants.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that God will provide any protection against the church being incorrect (like hurling anathemas upon the Protestants).

Or like the older versions of the Westminster Confession of Faith declaring the Bishop of Rome the anti-Christ.

Second of all the Church has to be diligently studying the Scriptures on fear that it might be wrong, not trusting in its own power and charism of “being incapable of being incorrect”.

Or diligently studying the Scriptures and still being wrong.

Third of all the Church should be humble and listening to everyone, including maybe those who disagree. Maybe the Church will just change its mind if it approaches any issue with humility.

Maybe even change its mind on matters of faith, meaning that it was teaching error (heresy) before.

Fourth of all the Church should make sure it is joining God in something He is doing, and not trying to adjucate a matter which God does not intend to reveal to the people of God.

Yes it should, yet we have a multitude of teachings from various churches concerning faith diametrically opposed to one another.

But this is far different from presuming it is"incapable of being incorrect whenever".

Then what you have concluded is that “the church” can teach heresy - the enemy of truth - yet still be the “pillar and bulwark of truth” as set forth in 1 Tim. 3:15. Your examples above demonstrate as much. That appears to me to contradict the plain meaning of the scriptural passage.

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by onenow1
Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world.

=onenow1, The above verses should be sufficient to disprove SS .

Peace,onenow1

= with questions … How ?

=onenow1,As simply as I can … Jesus tells the Apostles in VS 20, to go out and teach, since there is no NT yet, I would hardly think He was talking about the written testament;

And I also wouldn’t think it to be the OT. Remember Jesus had to explain to his disciples everything concerning Himself in OT prophecy, on the road to emmaus Luke 24, and I suppose there wouldn’t be a need for the NT.

John 21: 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

The above verse could be key, simply because he gave teaching authority, to the Apostles, and successors.

Peace

 

[Chancellare]

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.

The Bible does not say Scriptures alone is sufficient…
Contrarily, the Bible describes also the oral method of transmitting God’s Words and Holy Tradition.
Sola Scriptura claims that Scriptures is sufficient.
Therefore it contradicts the Bible.

The Bible is the Word of God
Sola Scriptura Contradicts the Bible
Therefore Sola Scriptura Contradicts the Word of God.

 

[ryanoneil]

It would be an interesting debate whether “an apostle (one of the 12) writing a letter to a church or an apostle orally teaching a church” is an infallible process. I am not sure that they are (I separate infallability from authoritativeness), but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. At any rate, that is a point that would need to be proved.

A highway will be there, called the holy way; No one unclean may pass over it, nor fools go astray on it. (Isa 35:8)

the early Church is identified as the “Way” in (Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22). The Church is prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err.

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

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

The process is the Holy Spirit and I can assure you that He exists now.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Mat 10:20)

In other words it is logically possible that either (a) the office of the apostle is no longer in existence or (b) the office of the apostle is in existence but in a diminished authority level in respect to the original twelve.

Not if you believe the Word of God. Jesus either told the truth or He lied.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Mat 28:19-20)

Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals.
(Unless one can prove the end of the age is already past)

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

The Word of God is quite clear and if Scripture is infallible shouldn’t we believe what it says?

 

[With_Questions]

I might have time for some posts today.

The Bible does not say Scriptures alone is sufficient…
Contrarily, the Bible describes also the oral method of transmitting God’s Words and Holy Tradition.
Sola Scriptura claims that Scriptures is sufficient.
Therefore it contradicts the Bible.

The Bible is the Word of God
Sola Scriptura Contradicts the Bible
Therefore Sola Scriptura Contradicts the Word of God.

The definition I supplied of Sola Scriptura says nothing about the word sufficient.

 

[With_Questions]

A highway will be there, called the holy way; No one unclean may pass over it, nor fools go astray on it. (Isa 35:8)

the early Church is identified as the “Way” in (Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22). The Church is prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err.

My translation says “And fools will not wander on it”

The process is the Holy Spirit and I can assure you that He exists now.

The Holy Spirit is a person, not a process.

An example of a process is “The Pope speaking on a matter of faith and morals”.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Mat 10:20)

Just because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, it does not necessarily logically follow that the church is incapable of being incorrect. Think logically. There are other logical alternatives.

Not if you believe the Word of God. Jesus either told the truth or He lied.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Mat 28:19-20)

Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals.
(Unless one can prove the end of the age is already past)

That does not necessarily logically follow.

In the same sense that Jesus presence in the Church assures divine healing or Jesus presence in the Church assures sinless perfection does not logically follow.

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

The Word of God is quite clear and if Scripture is infallible shouldn’t we believe what it says?

Well first of all the “you” here is unidentified.

And it still does not logically follow that the “you” here is incapable of being correct.

A similar passage might be Matthes 7:7-8

Ask, and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened for opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened

or John 15:16

And whatever you ask in in My name, He may give to you

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).

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.

 

[With_Questions]

Originally Posted by onenow1
Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world.

=onenow1, The above verses should be sufficient to disprove SS .

Peace,onenow1

= with questions … How ?

=onenow1,As simply as I can … Jesus tells the Apostles in VS 20, to go out and teach, since there is no NT yet, I would hardly think He was talking about the written testament;

And I also wouldn’t think it to be the OT. Remember Jesus had to explain to his disciples everything concerning Himself in OT prophecy, on the road to emmaus Luke 24, and I suppose there wouldn’t be a need for the NT.

John 21: 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

The above verse could be key, simply because he gave teaching authority, to the Apostles, and successors.

Peace

It does not necessarily logically follow from these Scriptures that simply because He gave teaching authority to the apostles, that he gave this authority to successors.

But even if it does…

It does not necessarily logically follow that there exists a process by which 100% teaching accuracy is a gimme and that it is not subject to implicit and explicit conditions and ultimately subject to the will of God.

 

[With_Questions]

Then what you have concluded is that “the church” can teach heresy - the enemy of truth - yet still be the “pillar and bulwark of truth” as set forth in 1 Tim. 3:15. Your examples above demonstrate as much. That appears to me to contradict the plain meaning of the scriptural passage.

Well God also promised that the church will be “Light of the World” a “City on a Hill” a “Holy Nation”. But yet sometimes He allows this church that He gave these promises to, to be scandalized by sin, divisions, quarreling and bickering, etc.

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.

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.

I can see much of Scripture in Gods Word that describe stuff that God wants to do but that He apparantly is not doing. It is reasonable to assume (I think) that the reason this is not happening is that perhaps sin, pride, presumption, arrogance, and division on our part are blocking God from doing what He said He wants to do in His word.

Furthermore I see much Scripture in Gods Word that describes stuff that God wants to do that is ultimately subject to the Will of God.

So I have no reason to conclude that it is impossible that any Scriptures that seem to promise "Protection of Error"ultimately are Scriptures of these types.

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.

 

[ralphinal]

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.

 

[onenow1]

It does not necessarily logically follow from these Scriptures that simply because He gave teaching authority to the apostles, that he gave this authority to successors.

But even if it does…

It does not necessarily logically follow that there exists a process by which 100% teaching accuracy is a gimme and that it is not subject to implicit and explicit conditions and ultimately subject to the will of God.

=onenow1, I respectively differ, and here is why : Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.

"Quote= onenow1 and so on and so on and so on, I believe its an all inclusive journey toward the truth, that is, Jesus the word.the Author authority]

Peace, onenow1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well God also promised that the church will be “Light of the World” a “City on a Hill” a “Holy Nation”. But yet sometimes He allows this church that He gave these promises to, to be scandalized by sin, divisions, quarreling and bickering, etc.

The Church is a Light of the World, it draws people to Christ. The members of the Church, Christians, are a Holy Nation. The Church is recognized by non-believers as a place of worship for believers. The Church and the truth do not change, even from the actions of “men”.

The same logic you speak of above can be applied to scriptures in respect to “men” misinterpreting scriptures. You have a Holy infallible source that loses infallibility with the wrong interpretation. Does that change what the truth is? No,

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.

If a promise is misinterpreted, can one assume a certain result according to the misinterpretation? This can apply to anything written in the Bible.

When St. Paul wrote the letter to Timothy with the passage your Church uses, what scriptures do you think he was writing about? Was he writing a letter of instruction and considering his letter to be scriptures, or was he writing about the scriptures of those times, the Old Testament the same scriptures the Lord referred too often, as the New Testament had not even began to be written?

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.

If you believe in truth and discern truth by doctrines taught and prayerful reflection, you will be protected. There’s a difference of obedience to God, and following God because it appears to be more convenient to one’s life choices.

What is heresy? Having early Christians believe the same interpretations for years and years, until centuries have passed and then hundreds of years later a group of people determine that all preceding people got it wrong and therefore were heretics? I’m sorry, I don’t see the logic in that. It seems more to be arrogance on the part of Protestants to think that someone in the 1500s finally got it right and God let generation after generation follow the wrong teachings.

I can see much of Scripture in Gods Word that describe stuff that God wants to do but that He apparantly is not doing. It is reasonable to assume (I think) that the reason this is not happening is that perhaps sin, pride, presumption, arrogance, and division on our part are blocking God from doing what He said He wants to do in His word.

It appears the above is measuring God’s ability or inability by the actions of “men”. No one is without sin. All have free will to follow or reject God. God cannot be blocked by “men”. Even with the apparent failures of men, there are many people who seek and live in response to God’s love. They don’t stand out as much because they lack pride, arrogance and have humility as desired by Him. Which examples of men do we measure God’s fulfillments by?

Furthermore I see much Scripture in Gods Word that describes stuff that God wants to do that is ultimately subject to the Will of God.

Who can truly know God’s plan or will? Who can say His will is not happening?

So I have no reason to conclude that it is impossible that any Scriptures that seem to promise "Protection of Error"ultimately are Scriptures of these types.

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.

We must disprove what has not been proven. Using semantics anyone could say this cannot be disproven according to my standards. For an example, let’s assume someone has misinterpreted a scripture, could their misinterpretation be proven according to them?

Many scriptures tell us to remember the traditions, but that wasn’t talking to us. One scripture says scriptures can be useful for reproving or correction, and it’s definately speaking to us and means it’s proof scriptures are the sole rule of faith and conduct even though that very verse will not become a part of scriptures for years and years to come. It appears to be picking which is literal and which is not.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful. I am only trying to understand the logic behind this discussion.

No matter how you define sola scriptura, it still interprets as Bible alone. If you want to call it the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct, it’s still Bible alone. Where does that leave the scriptures that speak of the traditions, ordinances or doctrines we must remember, whether they were spoken or written in epistle? Do we disregard those sciptures so we can keep a certain belief?

Before something can be disproven, it must first be proven, and I haven’t seen that yet. I see one verse taken and interpreted to fit a belief. You yourself have to realize that something useful is something that assists and is not something “sole”.

To understand a verse in context, one must read the chapter it’s in. To understand the chapter in context, one must read the letter/epistle it’s in. To understand the individual letter/epistle in context, one must read the New Testament it’s in. To understand the New Testament in context, one must read the Old Testament.

God Bless,

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Here are some scriptures that strongly supports the Church and the body of Jesus Christ are One.

Ephesians 1: 20 which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, 21 far above every principality, authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come.
22 And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, 11 the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Ephesians 3:8 To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, 9 **and to bring to light [for all] 5 what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, 10
so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities 6 in the heavens. **

Ephesians 5: 27 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. 28 So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one hates his own flesh but** rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church,** 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

1 Corinthians 12: 25** so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. **26 If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. 27 5 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. 28 Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; 6 second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way.

1 Corinthians 4: 17 For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.

Acts 20: 28 Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.

Overseers = Bishops, presbyters = Priests, Deacons were all recorded in scripture, revealing the Church Magisterium which continues today in the Roman Catholic church.

 

[ryanoneil]

My translation says “And fools will not wander on it”

OK. What translation do you use and how does it read this?

All your sons shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children. . . every tongue you shall prove false that launches an accusation against you. This is the lot of the servants of the LORD, their vindication from me, says the LORD. (Isa 54:13-17)

The Holy Spirit is a person, not a process.

An example of a process is “The Pope speaking on a matter of faith and morals”.

I know the Holy Spirit is a person.

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

If the “processes” are something other than the Holy Spirit, please prove it using scripture.

Just because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, it does not necessarily logically follow that the church is incapable of being incorrect. Think logically. There are other logical alternatives.

That does not necessarily logically follow.

In the same sense that Jesus presence in the Church assures divine healing or Jesus presence in the Church assures sinless perfection does not logically follow.

Logic, logic, logic. If I had to use that much logic I couldn’t believe one word of the Bible.

Jesus said the Spirit of truth would remain with them always and whoever listens to you listens to me. Logic isn’t going to help anyone believe this, but faith will.

Jesus is either speaking infallibly or not. If he is, then so are those who are speaking on his behalf.

Well first of all the “you” here is unidentified.

they are the seventy (two) and the Twelve.

**Carry no money bag, no sack, no sandals; and greet no one along the way. (Luke 10:4)

He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied. (Luke 22:35)**

And it still does not logically follow that the “you” here is incapable of being correct.

Is Jesus Christ incapable of being correct?

They are His words coming out of thier mouth after all.

I’ll try responding more after I get back from a family gathering

 

[With_Questions]

To possess “Truth” we need the Word of God living in his body the Church Jesus built upon Peter the Rock, which is today the Roman Catholic church.

Amen

Peace

You know I read this post several times, and still had difficulty following the logic.

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

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.

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.
B. The Roman Catholic church today teaches that its pope is incapable of teaching error in matter of faith and morals
C. Heretic churches teach that the only infallible rule of faith and conduct is the Bible.

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.

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

 

[wisdomseeker]

You know I read this post several times, and still had difficulty following the logic.

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

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.

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.
B. The Roman Catholic church today teaches that its pope is incapable of teaching error in matter of faith and morals
C. Heretic churches teach that the only infallible rule of faith and conduct is the Bible.

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.

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