Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[jkarp]

Instead of “only infallible rule of faith and conduct”.

Hmm that works for me too. But then again it is getting late and I am getting kranky. Time to stop arguing over the internet methinks.

It is either the only infallible rule of faith and conduct for everyone or for no one. Either what it says applies to everyone equally or it applies to no one. You can’t pick and choose which parts of it we want to listen to, it’s all or none.

Yup. If you think about it, it doesn’t make any sense that the Bible is “the only source of truth”.

Then what is the point of your argument again?

Where have I said that it is. Perhaps I have miscommunicated or not beein precise in my use of words.

Where have I done that.

Post #1 . . . #198, etc. I really don’t think there’s a need to itemize each occurence.

There is a big deal of difference in meaning between “our only infallible rule of faith and conduct” and “the only rule of faith and conduct”.

So what is right for you isn’t necessarily right for everyone else?

Not that I am infallible, but if I have erred, I think it is most likely in the words I use to convey my thoughts.

Which it is not. Otherwise I would have absolutely no reason to go to church every seventh day.

So what point are you attempting to make? It seems to me more and more that your point is simply meaningless debate - which is condemned by scripture.

I have never agreed that my faith has no teaching authority.

You did when you agreed that your church isn’t apostolic.

The only statement I agree to is that I can not trace the lineage of my faith back to St. Peter or whomever. That obviously is a big deal to you, but obviously it is not to me.

But this is a separate issue anyway.

No, they are quite connected, but I don’t really want to get into it either.

I’m still interested to hear your response to my post (#192):

You are relying upon some divinely inspired table of contents. By your own admission one doesn’t exist - we all (Catholics & protestants) rely upon Sacred Tradition to tell us which books comprise the canon. If scripture doesn’t tell us what comprises scripture, then it cannot be only source of truth.

 

[With_Questions]

It is either the only infallible rule of faith and conduct for everyone or for no one. Either what it says applies to everyone equally or it applies to no one. You can’t pick and choose which parts of it we want to listen to, it’s all or none.

Actually the word “our” is significant.

It is a common belief amongst Protestants that the office of the apostle ceased when the last of the 12 died.

It is also a (less) common belief amongst some Protestants that there was a shift the point in time the Bible was was adjucated. I have heard it said that 1 Cor 13:10 (but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with) refers to the canon, and that partial stuff (like the gifts of the Holy Spirit) no longer are in existence.

Now I have my reasons why I do not necessarily adhere to these beliefs. However, I do not think they can be disproved which is the point of this thread.

Then what is the point of your argument again?

..that you cannot disprove that the Bible is *our only infallible* source of truth.

Post #1 . . . #198, etc. I really don’t think there’s a need to itemize each occurence.

Then please don’t call my stuff “crazy nonsense” or “rambling off a bunch of nonsense” if you can not tell me where the “nonsense” is.

So what is right for you isn’t necessarily right for everyone else?

Under the definition of Sola Scriptura provided, is is possible that the apostalic church did have another infallible source of truth, namely the apostles. It would be an interesting discussion on whether the apostles were incapable of being incorrect (I see two sides to this btw) but the definition I provided does not preclude that possibility.

So what point are you attempting to make? It seems to me more and more that your point is simply meaningless debate - which is condemned by scripture.

Again this thread was started in response to another thread when a Catholic claimed he could logically disprove Sola Scriptura using Scripture (while at the same time Protestants can not logically Scripturally disprove points of Catholicism).
Since the phrase Sola Scriptura does not have a verb and therefore does not have a meaning, I supplied a definition from the statement of faith of my church.
</repeating myself>

If you (1) do not believe my definition of “Sola Scriptura” can be logically proved to be scripturally false (in other words you just disagree with my definition on the basis of your own “good reasons”) or (2) do not believe the definition I provided actually is “Sola Scriptura” (a case can be made for that btw) and thereby can not be proven false, then for the purpose of this thread I have no disagreement with you.

You did when you agreed that your church isn’t apostolic.

No, they are quite connected, but I don’t really want to get into it either.

OK. Then I will let this pass

I’m still interested to hear your response to my post (#192):

You are relying upon some divinely inspired table of contents. By your own admission one doesn’t exist - we all (Catholics & protestants) rely upon Sacred Tradition to tell us which books comprise the canon. If scripture doesn’t tell us what comprises scripture, then it cannot be only source of truth.

Sure.
The original post does not define Scripture as the only source of truth. It defines Scripture as our only infallible source of truth.
All that is necessary for me to accept the canon of Scripture as provided is to believe that those who decided the canon got the matter correct (because God made sure it was correct). I do not have to necessarily believe that the process they followed when they adjucated Scripture was incapable of being incorrect in order to accept the canon as is.

In other words I can accept something as true (or have faith in something) without believing that the object of my faith is incapable of being incorrect. I do that all the time in the natural realm.

 

[jlhargus]

In Mt 28:16-20 Jesus sent the eleven, saying, Go TEACH ALL NATIONS, TEACHING ALL I commanded you. I am with you TILL THE END. [Christ sent and promised to be with that teaching authority (magisterium) till the end. Those teacher’s are to teach ALL Christ commanded, to all nations, till the end.

LK 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me Jn 15:20…if they have kept my saying they will keep yours also

1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God listens to us and he who is not of God does not listen to us By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error [Who would be US? The pillar and ground of TRUTH the people of God, more specifically that teaching authority Christ sent. Listening to that authority we can know with assurance what is TRUTH and what is ERROR. Drawing that TRUTH from the Apostolic Tradition the Word of God, which is BOTH WORD AND EPISTLE, as Paul tells us, 2Thes214-15.

2 TIM 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast
heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. [Those sound WORDS committed and kept by the HOLY GHOST would be the WORD OF GOD whether by WORD or EPISTLE, TRADITION as discerned by that teaching authority, Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL TRUTH, therefore infallible.]

Jn 16:13 When the Spirit of Truth comes he will guide you into all truth. Jn 14:26 The Holy Spirit he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said to you. [As Paul states the scriptures themselves are one part of Apostolic Tradition discerned by the Church and passed on thru word or writing. The scriptures are without error, but understanding and interpretations are not without error, apart from listening to US as John stated.]

 

[jkarp]

Actually the word “our” is significant.

It is a common belief amongst Protestants that the office of the apostle ceased when the last of the 12 died.

It is also a (less) common belief amongst some Protestants that there was a shift the point in time the Bible was was adjucated. I have heard it said that 1 Cor 13:10 (but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with) refers to the canon, and that partial stuff (like the gifts of the Holy Spirit) no longer are in existence.

You may find that you’re repeating yourself a lot because your posts don’t make much sense at all (hence why I call them nonsense).

A final response to all of your posts as I think I have at least boiled down the point you are attempting to make:

You are attempting to say that there is no absolute authority. Ergo, what is good for you is not necessarily good for other people (by your own statement: “. . . our only infallible . . .”). This is simply false. Either the bible is true for everyone or it is true for no one. Moral relativism is a major problem in our society, the unwillingness to recognize an absolute truth leads to breakdowns we are experiencing in this country and around the world (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) In other words, Christianity is not like Baskin Robbins - you don’t get to choose which flavors you want, I’ll have a scoop of double chocolate, a scoop of french vanilla, and some strawberry topping; Christianity is all or none. Putting it another way, if what the bible says is true then it applies to all people:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
~ John 3:17

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
~ John 6:67-68

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
~ John 14:6

Here is the “logical argument” you desire:

If:1. The bible contains the words of Christ.
2. The words of Christ are the words of eternal life.
3. No person shall come to the Father except through the Son (Christ).

Then the bible applies to all people and cannot apply only to your church.

If the bible is absolute truth (or the “infallible rule of faith and conduct”) then it is for all people not just for the Methodists, or the Catholics, or the Jews, or the apostles, or whomever. Saying otherwise is nonsense.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The title of this thread disproves Sola Scriptura since it is the Chuch that wrote the bible.

If you are interested in truly defeating this heresy, or if you are a believer in Sola Scriptura, I challenge anyone to read this website and see if your beliefs remain unchanged:

**Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura **
By Joel Peters
geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

 

[jim1130]

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 ground rules 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.

I am certain this has already been addressed, but for starters there is a question of the use of the word “infallible” rather than “inerrant” in the church’s definition. Searching Merriam-Webster online (merriam-webster.com/):

Infallible (adjective) Date: 15th century - 1: incapable of error : UNERRING 2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN 3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Inerrant (adjective) Date: 1837 - free from error

I would have used the word “inerrant,” but the definition provided by With Questions uses “infallible.”

Key words in the definition are “We” and “our.” We may suppose that, in this instance, both “We” and “our” may be defined as pertaining only to the church of With Questions rather than a blanket definition governing all Christians, although it is addressed that this definition is compatible with another book. The definition may be concise, but the ambiguity associated with it may be more of my doing than the intent; however, I am concerned that the definition does not specifically or even generally identify how the Bible is to be used as a “rule of faith and conduct.” By whose authority is the “rule of faith and conduct” determined? Who does the interpreting? Is it left up to the individual or the pastor or the church elders? Such a definition may leave the Bible vulnerable to abuse and rationalization at the expense of truth (for example: Is it okay to steal to feed your starving children? Easy for me to say “no,” but then I am not poor, destitute, and desperate)…

So, 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.”

So really we have two challenges posed, the second being a result of the first: (1) Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura and (2) By disproving Sola Scriptura and having now invalidated the Bible as the inerrant word of God, defend Catholicism.

(continued)

 

[jim1130]

Continued

From my point of view, the challenge is like playing roulette with a loaded gun. You either deny that the Bible is the inerrant word of God or you embrace Sola Scriptura.

Answering the challenge (“…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.”) creates two answers: If I say II Timothy 3:16-17 is not true (per the challenge) then I am questioning the inerrant word of God and thereby diminishing, if not invalidating, the Bible as a whole. If I state the verse is true am I then subscribing to Sola Scriptura, which supports the claim of With Questions.

I am certain someone has already mentioned that the inclusion of the word “useful,” rather than a more authoritative term that would define the scripture as the lone source available and needed by a Christian, indicates that it may be in addition to or supplemental. Some will choose to interpret the verse as significantly more authoritative. The church for With Questions uses the verse to define the Bible as the “only infallible rule of faith and conduct” (i.e., it is the lone authority, nothing else is needed) whereas Catholics interpret II Timothy 3:16-17as meaning that scripture is useful, but not the lone source (particularly when you consider that the Canon of Scripture had not yet been identified at the time of the writing, although this has already been dismissed by With Questions as follows: “Neither will you get by with platitudes like the Canon argument.”).

Here is my answer: The truth of the verses of “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” comes down to interpretation. And to effectively interpret it, that leads one to the question of authority.

In the church of With Questions, who is the authority to interpret the Bible (and in doing so, who is the one who interprets II Timothy 3:16-17 as the authoritative citation that the Bible is all you need?)? The definition from your church indicates that you were led to the conclusion that the Bible is the “only infallible rule of faith and conduct” by your church. Or did you derive that conclusion on your own with your church’s definition substantiating your position?

As for me, knowing my limitations and the possibility that my emotions and current generational and regional biases may cloud my interpretative talents, that the Bible contains seemingly contradictions that I am incapable of effectively deciphering, that the Bible is not self-interpreting, and that I am ignorant of the time frame, historical situations, and language used during the time scripture was written, to name a few, I will cite 1 Timothy 3:15 “If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” and I will rely on the authority of the Catholic Church to guide me to the truth, combining the Bible with Tradition and the Magisterium.

 

[With_Questions]

You may find that you’re repeating yourself a lot because your posts don’t make much sense at all (hence why I call them nonsense).

That is really condescending.

I don’t respond to condescension.

A final response to all of your posts as I think I have at least boiled down the point you are attempting to make:

You are attempting to say that there is no absolute authority.
Ergo, what is good for you is not necessarily good for other people (by your own statement: “. . . our only infallible . . .”).

No, that is not what I was saying.

I could explain what I was saying.

But why bother.

My posts are all nonsense anyway.

 

[ckempston]

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.

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but what do you hope to achieve with this thread? Even if Catholics take the bait, an inability to disprove Sola Scriptura using the Bible would not lead anyone to conclude that Sola Scriptura was therefore true. It does not follow that if X cannot be disproven scripturally (I’m not saying that it cannot), that X is therefore true. In any case, I found your objection to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to be weak, and I think it completely destroys the argument:

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

Clearly, the Apostles’ teaching/tradition, whether written or oral is the Rule of Faith. Sola Scriptura is therefore Biblically disproven. Your extra requirement that it be a separate teaching is illogical.

You may not believe in Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, or Papal Infallability, but none of these things can be scripturally disproven. Does that make them true? I say this as someone who doesn’t believe any of those three doctrines.

The purpose of argument should be to discover truth. This thread can only lead to more questions, but you’ve set up the requirements in such a way that the main, and most rational, objections are rejected from the outset.

Where is the Inspired book of the Bible that’s labeled: Table Of Contents? There isn’t one. The position of Sola Scriptura from its outset is completely untenable for several reasons:

The argument is circular.
The argument begs the question.
The argument is internally inconsistent.
The argument equivocates (fallacy of four terms).

 

[jkarp]

That is really condescending.

I don’t respond to condescension.

No, that is not what I was saying.

I could explain what I was saying.

But why bother.

My posts are all nonsense anyway.

It is exactly what you are saying; if it is not what you mean, perhaps you should take some more time composing them to be more clear. You said that it is “. . . our only infallible rule . . .” and then you go on in later posts to say that this may not necessarily be true for other people but it is for you. Either it is for everyone or it is for no one, it is not relative.

 

[jim1130]

That is really condescending.

I don’t respond to condescension.

No, that is not what I was saying.

I could explain what I was saying.

But why bother.

My posts are all nonsense anyway.

It is exactly what you are saying; if it is not what you mean, perhaps you should take some more time composing them to be more clear. You said that it is “. . . our only infallible rule . . .” and then you go on in later posts to say that this may not necessarily be true for other people but it is for you. Either it is for everyone or it is for no one, it is not relative.

I think we should close this thread and allow ckempston’s post (209) to be the last word on the subject.

 

[With_Questions]

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but what do you hope to achieve with this thread?

See post 175 as to why I started this thread. It is important to understand that this thread is a response to another thread to a Catholic who claimed that he could logically Scripturally disprove Sola Scriptura.

Even if Catholics take the bait, an inability to disprove Sola Scriptura using the Bible would not lead anyone to conclude that Sola Scriptura was therefore true.

It does not follow that if X cannot be disproven scripturally (I’m not saying that it cannot), that X is therefore true.

I know that. I have no interest in proving Sola scriptura.

In any case, I found your objection to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to be weak, and I think it completely destroys the argument:
I
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings (traditions) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Clearly, the Apostles’ teaching/tradition, whether written or oral is the Rule of Faith. Sola Scriptura is therefore Biblically disproven. Your extra requirement that it be a separate teaching is illogical.

Umm…I don’t think I addressed 2 Thessalonians 2:15 at all.

But since you raise the point.

Please read again the definition supplied in the original post.

Here the word “our” and “infallible” are key.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 clearly refers to apostolic teaching only.

The apostles are quite dead I think.

Therefore the only apostolic teaching that I have that I know comes from the apostles is the New Testament, unless there is another source that is incapable of being incorrect that can separate apostolic oral tradition not found in the Bible from junk tradition.

You may not believe in Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, or Papal Infallability, but none of these things can be scripturally disproven. Does that make them true? I say this as someone who doesn’t believe any of those three doctrines.

If you read post# 175, you will see that I acknowledged that in the “disprove Catholicism” thread (of which this is a spinoff) none of the Protestants who were foolish enough to respond logically disproved Catholicism.

Logically Scripturally disproving something is more difficult than it seems. I guess maybe that is one of the intentions of this thread if you think about it.

The purpose of argument should be to discover truth. This thread can only lead to more questions, but you’ve set up the requirements in such a way that the main, and most rational, objections are rejected from the outset.

Perhaps so.

One of the objectives of this thread is to show maybe in a very roundabout way, that Scripturally proving / disproving something is a difficult if not impossible proposition. Everyone thinks their prooftext du jour actually disproves something, but really it does not.

A better approach methinks is that have good convincing reasons to believe why you believe and to share those. Makes for a less confrontational tone also.

But again, see the reason why I started this thread and worded it as I did.

Where is the Inspired book of the Bible that’s labeled: Table Of Contents? There isn’t one. The position of Sola Scriptura from its outset is completely untenable for several reasons:

The argument is circular.
The argument begs the question.
The argument is internally inconsistent.
The argument equivocates (fallacy of four terms).

Please see the original post for the definition of Sola Scriptura I use. As I have said many times the phrase Sola Scriptura must be defined because as it stands, the phrase lacks a verb. My 8th grade English teacher taught us that you can not have a sentence without a verb, and that a sentence is what communicates a complete thought.

It is from our church’s statement of faith.

Maybe I am thick but I totally miss how the Bible not having a Table of Contents means that there must be another source of faith that is incapable of being correct.

And maybe I am totally thick, but I totally miss how the definition provided in the original post is circular, begs the question, is internally inconsistent, and equivocates.

 

[With_Questions]

I think we should close this thread and allow ckempston’s post (209) to be the last word on the subject.

Actually I sort of would like to continue talking with ckempston if you don’t mind.

I don’t think he quite understands where I am coming from.

 

[jim1130]

Actually I sort of would like to continue talking with ckempston if you don’t mind.

I don’t think he quite understands where I am coming from.

Fair enough! I just did not want to see everyone beating one another over the head.

 

[jkarp]

Actually I sort of would like to continue talking with ckempston if you don’t mind.

I don’t think he quite understands where I am coming from.

You still haven’t actually responded to my point about the table of contents.

 

[ckempston]

I had to snip portions of your response to fit the maximum length:

See post #2. It was the first Catholic response, and basically demolished your argument, but you moved the goal posts by stating:

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.

Your requirements could just as easily be forced on written tradition as the verbal. So, you’re guilty of special pleading. The KJV didn’t descend from heaven on a cloud; the Bible has a long and complicated story, and it arrived to us in its current form by way of Tradition.

But since you raise the point.

Please read again the definition supplied in the original post.
Here the word “our” and “infallible” are key.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 clearly refers to apostolic teaching only.
The apostles are quite dead I think.

I’d agree with that, and therefore, we cannot verify with them what they said, OR what they wrote. You see, the problems you see for the “Tradition” position apply to the “Sola Scriptura” position as well.

Therefore the only apostolic teaching that I have that I know comes from the apostles is the New Testament…

Add to my criticism of Sola Scriptura the fact that there are several different variants and textual families that would also render the position untenable. If you said to me: Scripture is the sole rule of faith. I would say to you, which one? Textus Receptus? Nestle-Aland? The Byzantine? Even in English we have the same problem. I’d hate to get into the whole “KJV-only” debate, but it clearly exists, and it is clearly a legitimate question.

If you read post# 175, you will see that I acknowledged that in the “disprove Catholicism” thread (of which this is a spinoff) none of the Protestants who were foolish enough to respond logically disproved Catholicism.

Logically Scripturally disproving something is more difficult than it seems. I guess maybe that is one of the intentions of this thread if you think about it.

Perhaps so.

One of the objectives of this thread is to show maybe in a very roundabout way, that Scripturally proving / disproving something is a difficult if not impossible proposition. Everyone thinks their prooftext du jour actually disproves something, but really it does not.

I’d disagree with you here. There are many things that can be proven/disproven from scripture.

A better approach methinks is that have good convincing reasons to believe why you believe and to share those. Makes for a less confrontational tone also.

But again, see the reason why I started this thread and worded it as I did.

And your convincing reasons are that…you believe it because it cannot be disproven? Again, I’m not following, and I’ve read your original post. If your only point was to prove that it’s difficult to prove some things, I think I’ve wasted my time in even responding.

Please see the original post for the definition of Sola Scriptura I use. As I have said many times the phrase Sola Scriptura must be defined because as it stands, the phrase lacks a verb. My 8th grade English teacher taught us that you can not have a sentence without a verb, and that a sentence is what communicates a complete thought.

Everybody knows, essentially, what the extra-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura says. (/sarcasm)

It is from our church’s statement of faith.

Maybe I am thick but I totally miss how the Bible not having a Table of Contents means that there must be another source of faith that is incapable of being correct.

And maybe I am totally thick, but I totally miss how the definition provided in the original post is circular, begs the question, is internally inconsistent, and equivocates.

Here is your definition from Post #1

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

The argument is circular:

“The Bible is the sole, infallable rule of faith because it says it is the sole, infallable rule of faith.” (which it really doesn’t, but hey)

The argument begs the question:

“The Bible…” Which one? Which textual family? Which translation? etc.

The argument is internally inconsistent:

“We believe that the Bible…” This statement is an extra-biblical doctrine, not found in the Bible, rendering the “Sola Scriptura” claim inconsistent.

The argument equivocates (fallacy of four terms: Scripture is equivocated w/ Bible).

“All Scripture is God-breathed” is equated to “The Bible is God-breathed”. This equivocation is unwarranted (Paul was referring to the OT at the time), and ambiguous (i.e. the Protestant, or Catholic canon? The KJV or the NIV? Ad infinitum…).

 

[PJM]

You know, I don’t know for sure. I make no claim that I understand the Bible totally 100%.

I do know that “Whatever is bound in heaven is bound in earth” is not logically the same as “The pope is incapable of being incorrect when speaking on faith and morals”.

Reply:

Dear friend in Christ,

Your wrong! You make an assumption not based on historical facts.

Keep in mind that Jesus was speaking to Jews who knew Jewish tradition. Words mean something, and when Jesus speaks (being a Perfect All Knowing God) thay have very specific meaning.

To bind and to loose" were legally binding, contractual, Rabbinical terms to Govern and to make laws and administer. The power was absolute and the terms were clearly understood by those to whom Jesus was speaking.

Combine this power with God’s personal promise that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail” and we have now established bibically that
when the Supreme Pontiff teaches officially, to the entire world, on Matters of Faith and or Morals, that He cannot (not will-not, cannot) be in error. Keep in mind that God cannot lie!

Any other personal interpertation is in error! There can only be ONE single truth on any issue, other wise there could be NO truth at all.

God bless you, and Merry Christmas!
PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

You may not believe in Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, or Papal Infallability, but none of these things can be scripturally disproven. Does that make them true? I say this as someone who doesn’t believe any of those three doctrines.

So if it’s TRUTH you want I can provide bibical evidence of Transubstantiation, and Papal Infallability, and I can also explain the Assumption of Mary. So my friend are you really searching for the TRUTH?

I should add, that I can only do this if you accept what the Bible, and therefore God Himself shares with us. Are you up to the challange?

The purpose of argument should be to discover truth.

God bless you and Merry Christmas!

PJM m.c.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The title of this thread disproves Sola Scriptura since it is the Chuch that wrote the bible.

If you are interested in truly defeating this heresy, or if you are a believer in Sola Scriptura, I challenge anyone to read this website and see if your beliefs remain unchanged:

**Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura **
By Joel Peters
geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

don’t forget to read that book

 

[ckempston]

So if it’s TRUTH you want I can provide bibical evidence of Transubstantiation, and Papal Infallability, and I can also explain the Assumption of Mary. So my friend are you really searching for the TRUTH?

You totally missed the point, but I will have to disagree with you anyway. While Transubstantiation, Papal Infallability, and the Assumption of Mary are not expliciltly taught in the Bible, neither are they necessarily contradictory to it. I don’t disbelieve them, I simply find them overly burdensome, complicated, and far beyond what is necessary for salvation.

I should add, that I can only do this if you accept what the Bible, and therefore God Himself shares with us. Are you up to the challange?

If you want to affirm Transubstantiation or one of the others in a PM or another thread, feel free. I will jump in if I have time.