Sola scriptura challenge

[happilycatholic]

I really do not understand what you are saying. Perhaps I worded something wrong.

But remember that I am taught the word of God from my local church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth. My local church teaches me that the Bible is the “Word of God” but is silent on whether it is the “Only Word of God”. So under this analogy I am not free to choose for myself. It is in connection with my local church, the pillar and the foundation of the truth.

So when the Mormons come knocking on my door and say that “The book of Mormon is also the word of God”, how else am I to verify whether what they are saying is true or not?

Well, you have choices:

a. you can go to your local pastor and get guidance
b. you can read Scripture and discern for yourself
c. you can believe what the Mormons tell you without question

How are your choices different than mine? Well, I believe that it’s this:

The catholic Church gets it’s Truth from a singular source, the Holy Spirit. Where does your pastor get his truth? How do know it is not personal opinion, especially if you belong to a “non-denominational” church? (not that you do, I’m just saying)

We all have the same choices. Catholics just don’t claim to rely on choice *b. *We freely and readily admit that we submit to the Church when it comes to faith and morals, something I believe Christ tells us to do.

 

[happilycatholic]

So your local church taught that the bible is infallible and nothing else is infallible. OK, by that we can say that your local church in not infallible, no? So how can you be sure that your local church was right in saying that the bible is the only infallible source? Since your local church seems to be teaching that it itself is not infallible, it has no standing to declare the bible as infallible.

:hypno:

 

[NotTooSmart]

Well, you have choices:

a. you can go to your local pastor and get guidance

Ah. I see your point. And probably that is what I would do. Particularly as a new believer.

Now I do observe that following this method, until the pastor points me to another source that also is guaranteed to be incapable of being incorrect, I am in effect still practicing sola scriptura.

b. you can read Scripture and discern for yourself

And in real life I would only do this if the Mormons were convincing enough to shed doubt in my mind on my local church. If that were the case, I still would be responsible to examine everything and hold fast to what is true. And the only source I would have to do this would be my Bible. So I would still be practicing Sola Scriptura until that point I found the book of Mormon in my Bible.

c. you can believe what the Mormons tell you without question

Which I would do only if I came to doubt my local church and abdicated my responsibility to examine everything carefully.
How are your choices different than mine? Well, I believe that it’s this:

The catholic Church gets it’s Truth from a singular source, the Holy Spirit. Where does your pastor get his truth? How do know it is not personal opinion, especially if you belong to a “non-denominational” church? (not that you do, I’m just saying)

I know you believe this. I just am not convinced that the Catholic Church has any more special guidance from the Holy Spirit than my church has.

We all have the same choices. Catholics just don’t claim to rely on choice *b. *We freely and readily admit that we submit to the Church when it comes to faith and morals, something I believe Christ tells us to do.

And I respect your submission to your church. I am just not convinced that submission to any local church is without some type of boundaries since in the final analysis we as Christians are individually responsible before God for our beliefs.

 

[NotTooSmart]

So your local church taught that the bible is infallible and nothing else is infallible. OK, by that we can say that your local church in not infallible, no? So how can you be sure that your local church was right in saying that the bible is the only infallible source? Since your local church seems to be teaching that it itself is not infallible, it has no standing to declare the bible as infallible.

OK.

By this standard, the only truth that you can accept and be confident in is truth that comes from a source that is incapable of being incorrect.

OK. Using this same logic.

You can not have any confidence in what you learned in kindergarten when your teacher taught you how to count and how to read. That is, unless your kindergarten teacher was incapable of being incorrect also.

 

[Newbie2]

OK.

By this standard, the only truth that you can accept and be confident in is truth that comes from a source that is incapable of being incorrect.

True, especially in matters of faith.

OK. Using this same logic.

Not the same logic. See below.*

You can not have any confidence in what you learned in kindergarten when your teacher taught you how to count and how to read.

Not necessarily. There are many kindergarten teachers, not all of them teach the same thing i.e. some of them may teach incorrectly.

That is, unless your kindergarten teacher was incapable of being incorrect also.

Exactly the point.

Not the same logic. One can count in base 10. One can count in base 8. One can read in English. One can read in Spanish. There is only one truth in the revelation that is revealed in Scripture.

 

[SyCarl]

Not the same logic. One can count in base 10. One can count in base 8. One can read in English. One can read in Spanish. There is only one truth in the revelation that is revealed in Scripture.

How do you know that the Church is infallible except by personally interpreting Scripture to agree with the Church in the proof it submits for its infallibility?

 

[NotTooSmart]

Not the same logic. One can count in base 10. One can count in base 8. One can read in English. One can read in Spanish. There is only one truth in the revelation that is revealed in Scripture.

No. Exactly the same logic. If a source has to be incapable of being incorrect before you can believe it, then you will accept and learn nothing. By that standard you are still stuck in kindergarten because you can not accept your ABCs.

In the realm of everyday life, we receive truth from sources that are capable of error. so this whole line of “A source must be incapable of being incorrect before it can teach truth” is totally bogus and fallacious.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NotTooSmart,

I think you may have said this wrong…

I really do not understand what you are saying. Perhaps I worded something wrong.

But remember that I am taught the word of God from my local church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

St. Paul was NOT referring to your local church … while I am guessing that your ‘local church’ is located in the US - and obviously, the US was not part of the ‘known world’ or Roman Empire at the time of Paul’s writing - it simply could not apply. But, let’s not get tripped up on geography - there is also chronology to consider.

I do not know the name of your ‘local church’ but since you said it was ‘charismatic’ then I am guessing it came into existence sometime after 1890 … correct me here if I am wrong … but, my guess is that your ‘local church’ is less then 150 years old. Unless your ‘local church’ is about 1,976 years old (2009 - 33) then Paul could not have been addressing your group. But, you know, it doesn’t end there, either…

Theologically, Paul met the Risen Christ on the way to Damascus (and several other times during the remainder of Paul’s missionary journeys). Outside the Damascus gates Christ clearly identified that it was Himself (and not a bunch of underlings) that Paul was persecuting. Christ identified with His Members - and we can look to the Mystical Body of Christ for inspiration here. But, you know, you just have to ask yourself… just where did these believers in The Way come from? Moving back in Acts we find Peter - the foundation that Christ had build His Church upon - preaching that first sermon on that first Pentecost Sunday. So, we have our origin in Peter … and can trace it forward to Benedict XVI. Who originated your ‘local church’?

In my opinion, it is at this point that SS simply unravels itself. It was the CC that provides you with the Scripture you are claiming is all you need. This is like saying the food on your plate just happened to get there - your Mother was just incidental.

God bless

 

[NotTooSmart]

Hi, NotTooSmart,
St. Paul was NOT referring to your local church … while I am guessing that your ‘local church’ is located in the US - and obviously, the US was not part of the ‘known world’ or Roman Empire at the time of Paul’s writing - it simply could not apply. But, let’s not get tripped up on geography - there is also chronology to consider.

I do not know the name of your ‘local church’ but since you said it was ‘charismatic’ then I am guessing it came into existence sometime after 1890 … correct me here if I am wrong … but, my guess is that your ‘local church’ is less then 150 years old. Unless your ‘local church’ is about 1,976 years old (2009 - 33) then Paul could not have been addressing your group. But, you know, it doesn’t end there, either…

Well, if we follow the same logic, St. Paul was NOT referring to your local church either.

Now I know what you are going to say though.

Hi, NotTooSmart,
Theologically, Paul met the Risen Christ on the way to Damascus (and several other times during the remainder of Paul’s missionary journeys). Outside the Damascus gates Christ clearly identified that it was Himself (and not a bunch of underlings) that Paul was persecuting. Christ identified with His Members - and we can look to the Mystical Body of Christ for inspiration here. But, you know, you just have to ask yourself… just where did these believers in The Way come from? Moving back in Acts we find Peter - the foundation that Christ had build His Church upon - preaching that first sermon on that first Pentecost Sunday. So, we have our origin in Peter … and can trace it forward to Benedict XVI. Who originated your ‘local church’?

In my opinion, it is at this point that SS simply unravels itself. It was the CC that provides you with the Scripture you are claiming is all you need. This is like saying the food on your plate just happened to get there - your Mother was just incidental.

God bless

Yup we are the church that is founded upon Peter and we have a broken line of popes to Benedictus and we are the ones who gave you Scripture. Your church was founded upon a man while our church was founded upon Peter and was the one founded by Jesus Christ.

Oh and by the way it was our church that gave you the Scripture. So we are the ones that have the true interpretation of the Bible and to the extent that you disagree with us, that is the extent to which you are wrong.

It is all predictable.

Just not convincing.

I’ve checked out these claims in Scripture (since I am told to examine everything carefully and hold fast to only that which is good), and it would just take a whole lot of leaps in Scripture to go from the text that I am reading to the conclusions that you draw. These are leaps that I just can’t make. Sorry.

 

[Peter_J]

I would say that it is more of an assessment than a tradition. You are probably aware that the concept of Sola scriptura became more popular in the early 16th century. At that time, given what the western portion of the visible church was doing and teaching, it became obvious (to some) that the western portion of the visible church was teaching and acting in error. That observation caused those good people to wonder what, if anything, could be trusted if the church was capable of error. Their investigation told them that councils and popes often contradicted one another and so they were left with Scripture as being the only thing that could be said to reliably present the truth and only the truth. As such:

a) There should be no need to prove that the bible is reliable in the discussion amongst conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants as each acknowledge that as truth;

In one sense that’s true; but in another sense it’s really circular isn’t it? E.g. if someone claimed to be “Protestant” but didn’t accept Paul’s epistles as part of Scripture, then he/she wouldn’t really be a Protestant, right?

 

[Peter_J]

Nope: I don’t think you understand.

Let me explain with a neutral example…the book of Mormon.

I can reject the book of Mormon because I subscribe to this doctrine called Sola Scriptura that tells me to reject all competing claims of authority structure.

Well, let’s say you don’t subscribe to this as a doctrine. Does that mean you are going to become a Mormon when they come a knocking.

Well maybe somebody but not me. Because as a practice I take their claim of an alternative authority structure, look it up in Scripture (the only infallible authority source that I am aware of), and conclude…nope it ain’t there.

As long (1) you start off your Christianity as I did with only one source (the Bible) that you consider as infallible (note that you do not have to believe as a doctrine that only the Bible is infallible). and (2) you test each alternative claim of authority structure against the one source you know is infallible (note that you are not assuming beforehand that these alternative claims are impossible) and (3) you conclude…nope the claim ain’t there, you are in effect holding Sola Scriptura as a practice.

Alright, so what makes you think I don’t understand that? (That’s mostly a rhetorical question.)

The thing that strikes me is that you bring up the question of whether SS is a “doctrine”, and the question of whether it is a “practice”; yet you never seem to bring up the “middle question” (as it were) of whether SS is true.

 

[Reuben_J]

**Christ never taught that we should rely on our own judgement or interpretation of His teaching. That is why He sent the Apostles and he sent them over and over and that did not end upon Christ’s death on earth. It continued.

I’m not really sure at what point those who adhere to SS think Christ taught that we should simply drop everything but written word AND that was possible because everything was contained in written word.

Assuming He knew the Scriptures would be written and that His Apostles would distribute copies of that to believers, wouldn’t he have put something in place to instruct them as to how they should use it?**

Thought I highlight this cos I think it is central to the issue in discussion here. Maybe our Protestant friends should look at this again.

 

[Peter_J]

But remember that I am taught the word of God from my local church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Wow, sign me up!

Also, can you give me directions how to get there?

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, if we follow the same logic, St. Paul was NOT referring to your local church either.

Now I know what you are going to say though.

Yup we are the church that is founded upon Peter and we have a broken line of popes to Benedictus and we are the ones who gave you Scripture. Your church was founded upon a man while our church was founded upon Peter and was the one founded by Jesus Christ.

Oh and by the way it was our church that gave you the Scripture. So we are the ones that have the true interpretation of the Bible and to the extent that you disagree with us, that is the extent to which you are wrong.

You say it my friend, though you may mean it as a sarcasm. You still have to deal with that though and maybe tell us how it is not right.

It is all predictable.

Just not convincing.

I’ve checked out these claims in Scripture (since I am told to examine everything carefully and hold fast to only that which is good), and it would just take a whole lot of leaps in Scripture to go from the text that I am reading to the conclusions that you draw. These are leaps that I just can’t make. Sorry.

How so?

 

[Peter_J]

Well for my short time in this forum, I also have found one particularly glaring truth. That is that Catholics disagree amongst themselves.

One of the reasons for CAF’s success (including it’s ability to attract so many Protestant posters) is the strong “Traditionalist Catholic” presense here.

But, at the same time, I think it would be a mistake to look at the level (and tone) of disagreement that exists here, and assume it mirrors the Catholic Church as a whole.

I hope that helps.

 

[Peter_J]

Many protestant denominations recognise the need for and role of the church. They just dont agree that the church in question is the church of Rome.

Indeed, I think this could be considered one of the primary areas of disagreement among Protestants: some realize that the RCC is the Church but they don’t recognize the need for and role of the church. Others recognise the need for and role of the church, but they don’t realize that the RCC is the Church. (I won’t try to address the question, Which of those two errors is more erroneous? Although I will add that the former error seems to me a little more “transparent”, as it were, than the latter.)

 

[SyCarl]

One of the reasons for CAF’s success (including it’s ability to attract so many Protestant posters) is the strong “Traditionalist Catholic” presense here.

But, at the same time, I think it would be a mistake to look at the level (and tone) of disagreement that exists here, and assume it mirrors the Catholic Church as a whole.

I hope that helps.

Is it not possible that you find more agreement here than you would among the people in the pews. For example, how many still believe transubstantiation? How many think birth control or abortion is okay? How many would support married or female clergy? How many would accept homosexuality? How many actually accept every church teaching? Or would you say that such were not really Catholic? If so, how many actual Catholics would there be?

 

[Radical]

In one sense that’s true; but in another sense it’s really circular isn’t it?

I’d say that it is a reality (both historical and current)…

E.g. if someone claimed to be “Protestant” but didn’t accept Paul’s epistles as part of Scripture, then he/she wouldn’t really be a Protestant, right?

You missed the “conservative” bit. I guess you could ask: If someone claimed to be “conservative Protestant” or a “conservative Catholic” but didn’t accept Paul’s epistles as part of Scripture, then he/she wouldn’t really be a conservative (either Catholic or Protestant), right? And I would say, right…but the term “conservative” is used in a fairly well established manner by non-conservatives and conservatives alike.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Alright, so what makes you think I don’t understand that? (That’s mostly a rhetorical question.)

The thing that strikes me is that you bring up the question of whether SS is a “doctrine”, and the question of whether it is a “practice”; yet you never seem to bring up the “middle question” (as it were) of whether SS is true.

Good question.

Let me collect my thoughts as how this should be approached.

You see if I were claiming that SS is a Biblically true doctrine, the burden of proof would be on me to first define it and then to convincingly show from Scripture that my definition is true. To be honest although it may still be a Biblically true doctrine, I think that proving it is harder than folks think it is (either that or I am NotTooSmart); and if I were Catholic I probably would not be buying into many of the proofs I have read so far. So I won’t go there.

If I were claiming that SS is a Biblically true practice, (meaning you Catholics really should junk your magisterium and your pope being incapable of being incorrect), it would seem that we really have the same issues as a Biblically true doctrine. But that is not my motive for being here, to lecture you all on how wrong you are.

But.

Even is SS is not a doctrine or a practice that can be proven to be Biblically true, it does not necessarily follow that there are sources of faith other than the Bible that can be clearly identified today and that is guaranteed to be incapable of being without error today. This one sentence is key. Just because I am not smart enough to open my Bible and prove a given definition of SS as definitely Biblically true, it does not follow that your claims, or anybody elses claims for that matter are definitely true.

So, it would seem to me that in order by my practice of Sola Scriptura to be false, then in reality there must be sources of faith other than the Bible that can be clearly identified today and are clearly incapable of being in error today.

Now of course you claim that there are. And so do the Mormons for that matter.

But, according to 1 Thess 5;21, I am not to take either your say so or the Mormons say so. So then the question to me becomes “How do I carefully examine your claims and the claims of the Mormons so that I only buy into them if they are in fact true”. Because as a matter of Spiritual self-preservation, the last thing I want to do is to buy into false claims.

Since I know and have accepted the Bible as being the written, infallible, inerrant Word of God, it seems to me that those are the pages that I must turn to verify both your claims and the claims of the Mormons.

So if it can be clearly shown (so that I don’t have to make incredible leaps of logic) from the Bible that your claims and/or the claims of the Mormons are in fact true, then I have tested these claims sufficiently and I will abandon my practice of Sola Scriptura as having been shown to be false.

 

[Peter_J]

Is it not possible that you find more agreement here than you would among the people in the pews. For example, how many still believe transubstantiation? How many think birth control or abortion is okay? How many would support married or female clergy? How many would accept homosexuality? How many actually accept every church teaching? Or would you say that such were not really Catholic? If so, how many actual Catholics would there be?

Good point. I misspoke a little bit. It isn’t so much the amount of disagreement among the Catholic posters here, but rather the way that disagreements are viewed.

Thus, for example, soft-core “Traditionalist Catholics” and hard-core “Traditionalist Catholics” really agree on quite a lot, objectively speaking; but an observer of their conversations with each other, might not see it that way because the conversations will most likely focus on areas of disagreement.

Or consider the parish priest (mentioned on I-don’t-recall-which-thread) who told his parishioners not to come forward to receive communion if they didn’t agree with every word of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’m quite certain that, objectively speaking, that parish housed far less disagreement than most other Catholic parishes; nevertheless, a visitor to that parish might very well come away with the perception that the Catholic Church (as a whole) is rife (or riddled, whichever one is stronger) with serious disagreements.