Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[hmgs1]

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.”

 

[tortdog]

Here’s a question: What scripture(s) was Peter and Paul using during their ministry?

Solid. I think that pretty much ends the debate in my view, as clearly the earliest Christians could not have lived by this creed.

 

[hmgs1]

Actually, no it didn’t. I didn’t respond to a similar criticism on a different thread, but I will now. Matheson in the Shape of Sola Scriptura agrees that the early Church did not have a full canon Bible, but did have pieces of scripture that were read and commonly accepted. In that light he did list quotes from several Church fathers to include Hippolytus (170 - 236) in something called “Against the Heresy of One Noetus,”

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.

Now legitimate criticism against Matheson can include mistranslation, misinterpretation and avoiding the use of contrary passages by Hippolytus’ contemporaries, but the man is neither malicious nor stupid and his work has some substantial, if not total, merit.

 

[With_Questions]

I time this afternoon and evening to catch up on my backlog here.

It was implied in a previous post that I do not answer questions (and perhaps I missed them) so I will get to that today.

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

1. Christ’s church can still be “the pillar and foundation of truth” while at the same time it teaches (as truth) false doctrine opposed to Christianity.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Simply by pointing out how the verse is interpreted in regards to parallel situations or by pointing out how parallel verses are interpreted.

 

[With_Questions]

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

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”.

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.

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. For example my Red Sox prevailed against the evil empire in the 2004 ALCS. However they were down 3-0 in that series.

We are not at the end of the church age. So if you want to use this verse to “prove” my definition of Sola Scriptura to be definitely Scripturally false, you first of all must prove why the meaning of the word “prevail”

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

Yup. As I said before in the same way that a church that is without spot or wrinkle can sin.

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.

 

[With_Questions]

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

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

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

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

If this is the Catholic understanding of “Sola Scriptura”, then I really don’t know anyone who believes this. It makes me wonder why the Catholics respond in such a knee-jerk fashion to the phrase “Sola Scriptura” if in real life nobody (or very few) really believes it.

Maybe some strains of KJV only fundamentalists, I dunno. Or maybe some folks who don’t celebrate Christmas or use instruments or some other nonsense because the practice is not supported by the Bible.

But certainly not myself or my church. And we are fairly mainline, typical American evangelicals if I must classify us as such.

 

[MrStain]

This verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Wouldn’t that mean the other letter is also an infallible rule of faith and conduct?

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. (1 Cor 5:9-11)

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

 

[With_Questions]

Hi:

I am finally getting round to this one as promised.

This is in response to my concession that if one can “Scripturally prove” that what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church is in its entirety the exclusive church of Jesus Christ, then we have Scripturally disproved Sola Scriptura.

Hi With Questions,
Knowing that there is one Church and who that church is are two different things.

I will address this sentence at the end because there are some implications here.

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

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

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

This was a new argument that I have not heard before. So, I do not want to dismiss it without due consideration.

Generally when I hear something new that says A must mean B, my approach is to brainstorm for alternatives without dismissing any of them yet. Then as I consider the alternatives that I have brainstormed, I can dismiss them if they don’t make logical sense.

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.

(1) The church is really not divided against itself.

The church is people who have their faith in Christ not organizational structures. What unites all believers, their common faith in Christ, their common regeneration through the Holy Spirit is far greater than the secondary issues that seem to divide the people of God.

(2) Yes the church is divided against itself. But not as bad as in Matthew 12;25.

In context Matthew 12:25 is referring to Jesus casting Satan out through the power of Satan. Whatever divisions exist in the church are not as bad as this.

(3) Yes the church is divided against itself. But Jesus is in the process (and ultimately will complete) the task of fixing this so that the consequences of being unable to stand will not reach fulfillment.

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

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

Actually I am inclined to personally agree with much (not all) of this in principle.
(1) I don’t however think its provable.
(2) I don’t want to misunderestimate the power of human free will to temporarily thwart the plan of God. However in the end, Jesus will get what He designed and prayed for.

This is one reason why I am not the rapturist type that believes that at any moment the church will fly away out-of-here. The church right now is not ready.

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.

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

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.

As far as I know, this is only the Roman Catcholic Church (excluding for the moment Mormons, JW and the like).

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.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am back after being tied up for 4 days.

I will respond to selected posts.

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

this is just refering to you quote. how many times did you get born again? all the denominations you were apart before all claim being borne again, is it not?

**“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… **

 

[With_Questions]

Actually I missed this one the first time around.

This verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Wouldn’t that mean the other letter is also an infallible rule of faith and conduct?

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. (1 Cor 5:9-11)

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

Good point.

If it is a true that evidence of apostolic authorship was the criteria of exclusion or inclusion in the NT, then I would have to believe that this letter would have been included in the NT had it not been lost.

Of course one might argue that since it was lost, it was never in the plan to be in the New Testament from the beginning. So was this letter really incapable of being incorrect like the letters that made the cut.

So I will just admit that “I dunno” to that one.

But the statement of faith reads

our only infallible rule of faith and conduct

It is impossible for a document that we don’t have access to to be our rule of faith and conduct, much less an infallible one.

I must admit to lucking out on the wording here. Alternative wordings could have been subject to nitpicking.

 

[With_Questions]

this is just refering to you quote. how many times did you get born again? all the denominations you were apart before all claim being borne again, is it not?

You are not born again by being a part of a denomination.

In fact a denomination can not be born again. Only a person can.

One is born again when they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. This happens once and does not happen again when you change churches or switch denominations.

Dave Armstrong did not become born-again again when he converted to Catholicism.

 

[JVSantos]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by jkarp **
Here’s a question: What scripture(s) was Peter and Paul using during their ministry?

Originally Posted by tortdog
Solid. I think that pretty much ends the debate in my view, as clearly the earliest Christians could not have lived by this creed.

+1 THE DEBATE ENDS

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Wouldn’t the lack of consistent interpretation among protestant churches be a de facto argument against at least the sola part of sola scriptura? It isn’t proof but we have so little proof as to any definitive truth, certitude, not certainty is our domain.

As Descartes suggests that God cannot lie, then He would not deceive us. In light of two opposing views, one cannot be correct.

Knowing that humans are fallible, an institution is in order, a new Chair of Moses which seems to me to have fulfilled the purpose to which it was intended, in light of it’s consistency in spite of the utterly fallible nature of those involved and the length of time involved.

 

[cfrancis]

Wouldn’t the lack of consistent interpretation among protestant churches be a de facto argument against at least the sola part of sola scriptura? It isn’t proof but we have so little proof as to any definitive truth, certitude, not certainty is our domain.

I too wondered about this.
From (I groan to type this) Wikipedia:

the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

From James White’s site:

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

From bible.ca:

B. Sola Scriptura means:

The Bible alone without creeds. (ie Apostles creed, Nicene creed.)
The Bible alone without councils. (ie Ecumenical Councils.)
The Bible alone without church canons. (ie Canons of Dort.)
The Bible alone without statements of faith. (most churches create one.)
The Bible alone without oral tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without church tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without a “church interpreter”. (Catholic, Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses all say only the church can correctly interpret the Bible, not the individual.)
The Bible alone without individual illumination of the Holy Spirit. (Evangelicals, Baptists, Charismatics and Calvinists believe they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret the Bible.)
The Bible alone without modern day prophecy and inspiration. (Pentecostal, Charismatic and most of the 19th century cults, (Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists) all claimed to have living prophets.)

According to AA Hodge:

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

There are common themes, yet also variances.
One of the issues that comes to light from these definitions is the issue of who defines what the Bible says and is therefore infallible doctrine.

If sola scriptura was both apostolic and Scriptural, we would expect to see during the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, solely an appeal to Scripture, both in its defense and its definition.

 

[JVSantos]

[There are common themes, yet also variances.
One of the issues that comes to light from these definitions is the issue of who defines what the Bible says and is therefore infallible doctrine.

If *sola scriptura was both apostolic and Scriptural, we would expect to see during the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, solely an appeal to Scripture, both in its defense and its definition.

cfrancis,
Your post just sums it up. The title of this Thread has just been answered. It’s not breaking news to me and to my fellow Catholic members of this forum, nevertheless its a good thread.
Thanks to All.

 

[ralphinal]

If this is the Catholic understanding of “Sola Scriptura”, then I really don’t know anyone who believes this. It makes me wonder why the Catholics respond in such a knee-jerk fashion to the phrase “Sola Scriptura” if in real life nobody (or very few) really believes it.

Maybe some strains of KJV only fundamentalists, I dunno. Or maybe some folks who don’t celebrate Christmas or use instruments or some other nonsense because the practice is not supported by the Bible.

But certainly not myself or my church. And we are fairly mainline, typical American evangelicals if I must classify us as such.

People CLAIM to beleive something and that is not always borne out in practice. I know of several denominations in ALabama that swear by the fact that only the Bible is needed and the Bible interprets itself.

These next two posts have great info

I too wondered about this.
From (I groan to type this) Wikipedia:

From James White’s site:

From bible.ca:

According to AA Hodge:

There are common themes, yet also variances.
One of the issues that comes to light from these definitions is the issue of who defines what the Bible says and is therefore infallible doctrine.

If sola scriptura was both apostolic and Scriptural, we would expect to see during the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, solely an appeal to Scripture, both in its defense and its definition.

[There are common themes, yet also variances.
One of the issues that comes to light from these definitions is the issue of who defines what the Bible says and is therefore infallible doctrine.

If *sola scriptura

was both apostolic and Scriptural, we would expect to see during the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, solely an appeal to Scripture, both in its defense and its definition.

cfrancis,
Your post just sums it up. The title of this Thread has just been answered. It’s not breaking news to me and to my fellow Catholic members of this forum, nevertheless its a good thread.
Thanks to All.

 

[With_Questions]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by jkarp **
Here’s a question: What scripture(s) was Peter and Paul using during their ministry?

Originally Posted by tortdog
Solid. I think that pretty much ends the debate in my view, as clearly the earliest Christians could not have lived by this creed.

+1 THE DEBATE ENDS

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.

 

[With_Questions]

Wouldn’t the lack of consistent interpretation among protestant churches be a de facto argument against at least the sola part of sola scriptura? It isn’t proof but we have so little proof as to any definitive truth, certitude, not certainty is our domain.

Well it is a de facto argument if you want to claim that Scripture is 100% clear 100% of the time.

That is not the definition of the original post.

As Descartes suggests that God cannot lie, then He would not deceive us. In light of two opposing views, one cannot be correct.

God just might not be spoon feeding the truth.

Knowing that humans are fallible, an institution is in order, a new Chair of Moses which seems to me to have fulfilled the purpose to which it was intended, in light of it’s consistency in spite of the utterly fallible nature of those involved and the length of time involved.

That is fine and certainly not incompatible with the definition original post.

God certainly has provided the church as a resource to the people of God as well as He has provided Scripture.

And while it may seem reasonable to some that this “institution” be incapable of incorrect, this sense of reasonableness is highly subjective and does not constitute proof.

From my perspective it is reasonable (for a number of reasons) this this “institution” be authoritative and respected, but not incapable of being incorrect. But I will never claim that what seems reasonable to me is “proof positive”.

 

[With_Questions]

I too wondered about this.
From (I groan to type this) Wikipedia:

From James White’s site:

From bible.ca:

According to AA Hodge:

There are common themes, yet also variances.

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.

One of the issues that comes to light from these definitions is the issue of who defines what the Bible says and is therefore infallible doctrine.

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.

If sola scriptura was both apostolic and Scriptural, we would expect to see during the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, solely an appeal to Scripture, both in its defense and its definition.

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

 

[JVSantos]

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.

**Been there, Done that and have the T-shirt.
I apologize it disappointed you **