Sola Scriptura

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Genesis315!

Here’s a question I always have had. Say I write in a notebook a bunch of nice, consistent, moral stories and at the end I write “This is the inspired Word of God.” Now, simply from the text you cannot verify that it is or is not authentic. Isn’t this the same with the Bible? Don’t we have to go to an outside source to verify its authenticity? Or am I misunderstanding sola scripture? Thanks.

See my original post in this thread. In my example, my little notebook is the Word of God because it says so. (#2).

On the other hand, we can look at outside historical evidence to validate the authority of the Church. Likwise, we can validate the Bible because the authority says its good.

Think about it. You originally knew the Bible was the Word of God because either someone you trusted told you it was. You can’t get that from the Bible anymore than you can get it from my hypothetical notebook.

I already warned about this problem which you have ignored. You have presented an evidential argument against scepticism. That is absolutely fatal. Let me show you how this would play out for this argument. First of all, if we need an outside source to validate scripture, then how do we know what that outside sources is to validate scripture? It won’t do you any good to say that the church told you so, or that the Bible told you so, because if you say that, then you beg the question because Rome defines what the Bible is and it’s interpretation, and what its teachings are and its interpretation. Hence, you beg the question because you basically say that Rome’s claim is true because it says so. The problem becomes even more clear when we realize that the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses all say they are the true church. I already explained that even if you could go to history to validate the claims of Rome, you still have not gotten out of the infinitely regressive argument. For instance, how do you know that you go to history to validate the claims of Rome? Then, of course, we would need something to validate the claim that we should go to history, and then something to validate the claim that validates the claim that we should to go history, and then something that validates the claim, that validates the claim, that validates the claim that we should go to history, and so on… It is infinitely regressive.

The only way out of that argument is to have authority that is self-authenticating. That is, an authority that depends upon no proof for its authority. What this entire little example points out is that, for the Catholic or Protestant, to use the evidential method is to try to make either side prove that God is God. However, you can’t prove God is God because God’s existence is the basis for all proof. He decides how rules of reasoning and logic will work, and hence, he is not dependent upon any reason or logic. He is self-authenticating. That is why I said that you must have a self-authenticating authority. Hence, the circularity cannot be avoided by either side, and the ultimate authority from each side must be seen as their divine authority. Otherwise, we go into infinitely regressive arguments that accomplish nothing.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Milliardo]

Martin Luther:

Now to address the questions you asked that I have not yet addressed. First of all, with regards to question #3, by what authority do I teach and interpret the Bible? From Biblical authority of course.

And that is the only thing you have? How can you be sure that you’re teaching and interpreting it correctly? After all, there are many other denominations who make the same claim you make–they say they teach and interpret it because of Biblical authority. What makes yours different from them then?

We will distort them. Hence, we have exhortations to preach the word, test things by the scriptures, and practice taught and careful exegesis.

Isn’t this premise going outside of sola scriptura already? Since you say we have exhortations to preach the word, test them, and practice taught and careful exegesis…, then you have to admit that there is at least someone else who you got careful exegesis from.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Milliardo!

And that is the only thing you have? How can you be sure that you’re teaching and interpreting it correctly? After all, there are many other denominations who make the same claim you make–they say they teach and interpret it because of Biblical authority. What makes yours different from them then?

Major problems right away. First of all, how do you know that you have choosen the right infallible interpreter? The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Moonies all claim the ability to give you an infallible interpretation. Without begging the question and answering with Roman Catholic beliefs, how do you know that the Roman Catholic church is that interpreter when there are a ton of others? You see, you have the same problem. Then if you say that it is by another authority other than the Roman Catholic Church, I will ask you why that authority tells you that the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter. If you answer another authority, I will ask you how you know that that is the authority which gives the authority which gives the authority to the Roman Catholic Church to interpret the scriptures, and so on…

Remember, I believe in the self-attesting nature of Scripture. You believe in the self-attesting nature of the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, we do not need something outside of them to say that they are correct in what they say or to determine what they say because they have the authority of God.

Furthermore, this is also a self-refuting argument. Rome has not defined more then about 10 verses as to what they mean. Hence, you have to rely on your own fallible interpretation of the Bible yourself. That doesn’t solve anything. Furthermore, after you have an infallible interpretation, you still have to interpret the infallible interpreter. This has led to all kinds of silly things such as Catholic scholars Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer denying that the scriptures are inerrant, and believing that that they are only inerrant in matters of salvation. In fact, these men have served on papal commissions, and they look at the same church documents you do and come to such very different conclusions. Rome has never corrected the confusion [and they are well aware that it exists], and yet they have had these men serve on papal comissions. How can this be if having an infallible interpreter gives us so much certainty?

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Martin_Luther]

Oops, forgot one thing, Milliardo

Isn’t this premise going outside of sola scriptura already? Since you say we have exhortations to preach the word, test them, and practice taught and careful exegesis…, then you have to admit that there is at least someone else who you got careful exegesis from.

I don’t really understand this question. Exegesis is done within the text of scripture. How that can be going outside of it I don’t know. However, you need to be careful about saying someone is going outside of scripture. Look at my post on what Sola Scriptura is not. Notice that Sola Scriptura is not the claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. Hence, finding something outside of scripture is not all that significant.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Milliardo]

Martin Luther:

First of all, how do you know that you have choosen the right infallible interpreter? The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Moonies all claim the ability to give you an infallible interpretation.

Do these have the witness of early Christianity? It is clear these you talk about reject early Christianity and have written much of Christianity off.

Without begging the question and answering with Roman Catholic beliefs, how do you know that the Roman Catholic church is that interpreter when there are a ton of others?

We have the unbroken chain of teaching from the early years of the Church to the present, all of whome have witnessed to it. What is your claim then?

You see, you have the same problem. Then if you say that it is by another authority other than the Roman Catholic Church, I will ask you why that authority tells you that the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter. If you answer another authority, I will ask you how you know that that is the authority which gives the authority which gives the authority to the Roman Catholic Church to interpret the scriptures, and so on…

And by what authority does your teacher then have, going about that line of thinking of yours?

Remember, I believe in the self-attesting nature of Scripture…we do not need something outside of them to say that they are correct in what they say or to determine what they say because they have the authority of God.

We go back to that premise then: what makes you sure that the Bible is true? Self-attesting? If that’s true, then Muslims and other non-Christians wouldn’t have a problem with it and would automatically believe in it. But I have encountered Muslims who have read the Bible and still come out not believing in Christianity, and in fact use the Bible against what we believe in. So how do you say it is self-attesting?

 

[Milliardo]

Martin Luther:

I don’t really understand this question. Exegesis is done within the text of scripture. How that can be going outside of it I don’t know.

Exegesis means the interpretation of Scripture. So by your premise it is done within the text of the Scripture. But that would be faulty because when you think of it, you’ll have a different interpretation from what I have, going by your logic. Or to put it another way, we can turn to the Protestant example: one denomination thinks a passage should be interpreted in such a way, and another one says differently. Now that’s two groups going by the text of Scripture! One cannot be right, obviously: one is interpreting it correctly and the other is not.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Milliardo!

Exegesis means the interpretation of Scripture. So by your premise it is done within the text of the Scripture. But that would be faulty because when you think of it, you’ll have a different interpretation from what I have, going by your logic. Or to put it another way, we can turn to the Protestant example: one denomination thinks a passage should be interpreted in such a way, and another one says differently. Now that’s two groups going by the text of Scripture! One cannot be right, obviously: one is interpreting it correctly and the other is not.

The problem is now your argument is becoming silly. You have said that we all must interpret things and our interpretations are fallible, and that is why we need an infallible interpreter. Now you are turning around and saying all sorts of things that have no basis in an infallible interpreter. According to your view, we cannot know that we came up with different interpretations of scripture because it is just your interpretation that we came up with different interpretations of scripture. We have to interpret things all of the time. Saying that we can’t know things because we are fallible means I can challange you on everything you know, and you can know nothing for certain, because everything you know is going to be fallible even, yes, your choice of an infallible interpreter [which means the alleged infallible interpretations are not infallible]. Here is a good example. I go to school up here in Wisconsin, and we have a lot of barns for the cows, but we also have a lot of houses as well. According to your logic, you cannot know that the building with an octagon shaped roof is a barn and the building with a triangle shaped roof is a house, because it is on the basis of your own fallible interpretation. You cannot tell the difference between the birds and the grass because it is just your infallible interpretation. I thought this is where you were going, but as you can see, this philosophy is doomed from the start. It makes complete nonsense out of the world.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This looks like a great thread. Too bad its 10pm, because I dont even have time to start my posts, I will try to get back tomorrow.

From what I have seen already you are trying to restrict the Catholic Church to the same limits you yourself are restricted to, when that is not the case with the Catholic position. For example you put equal weight on things when they are two different things, like when you compare the Bible to the Church that doesnt work. Also you seem throw the CC (Catholic Church) into the same boat as JW, LDS, when talking about authority, when there is a huge huge difference between each group, the biggest difference is their place in history which you seem to try and deprive the CC of this key advantage.

Any way I will try to get back ASAP.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Milliardo!

I really don’t think you understand the serious problems with trying to defend an epistomolgy against skepticism by evidence. It, again, just takes us right back to that infinitely regressive argument.

Do these have the witness of early Christianity? It is clear these you talk about reject early Christianity and have written much of Christianity off.

Again, Milliardo, you misunderstand the whole argument being put against your position. First of all I don’t agree that you can go to the early church, because I believe that had no idea of many modern day Roman Catholic dogmas, but, be that as it may, you still have not avoided that infinitely regressive argument. Why do you go to history? You can’t answer the question with either the Bible or the Catholic Dogma because the Catholic Church defines them, and hence, you would beg the question. Hence, you have to say it is because of some other reason. And then I will ask you why it is because of that reason, and then you will tell me another reason for the reason that we go to history. Then, of course, I will ask you for the reason, of the reason, of the reason that you go history, and so on… You still haven’t avoided that infinitely regressive argument. You have to have self-attestation because it is a philisophical fact that you cannot solve arguments of skepticism by evidence.

We have the unbroken chain of teaching from the early years of the Church to the present, all of whome have witnessed to it. What is your claim then?

First of all, I don’t agree that you have an unbroken chain of teaching when the early church is silent on things such as the Queen of Heaven dogma and Bodily Assumption Dogma. Of course, here is that infinitely regressive argument again. Why do we go to an unbroken chain of teaching? Why does that tell us what the infallible interpreter should be? When you present the reason, I am just going to ask you why it is because of that reason, and when you give me another reason, I am just going to ask you why it is because of that reason, and on and on… Again, evidential evidence won’t work against the arguments of skepticism.

And by what authority does your teacher then have, going about that line of thinking of yours?

I am really not sure what you are asking here. My ultimate teacher is the word of God. You have forgotten that I said it was self-authenticating. That is the only way to avoid the infinitely regressive arguments.

We go back to that premise then: what makes you sure that the Bible is true? Self-attesting? If that’s true, then Muslims and other non-Christians wouldn’t have a problem with it and would automatically believe in it. But I have encountered Muslims who have read the Bible and still come out not believing in Christianity, and in fact use the Bible against what we believe in. So how do you say it is self-attesting?

We know it is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. You reject biblical inspiration as part of your worldview, and you are reduced to absurdity. We prove it is true from the impossibility of the contrary. That is what presuppositionalism is all about. That is why I want to take your self-authenticating authority in the Roman Catholic Church and Compare it to my self-authenticating authority in the Bible, and point out that I have many manuscripts, and so on that take me back to the days of the apostles, and I have all of this evidence that I can use to substantiate that the scripture is apostolic. It is impossible to even begin to prove that things in the Catholic Church that have been proclaimed on the basis of tradition such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the Queen of Heaven dogma are apostolic because the early church is silent on them. Therefore, because of the impossibility of the contrary, Sola Scriptura is vindicated, and is indeed true. That is the whole argument I am presenting.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[scylla]

You cannot put Catholicism in the same category as Jehovahs Witnesses, Protestants, Evangelicals or Bible Christians, unless you ignore logic.
We can look at the historical record, early Christian writings, and use this to prove that Catholicism existed first and these groups branched off of it. As someone said earlier you are trying to fit Catholicism to the same limitations you have in proving your point which doesn’t work.
We can prove that Jesus Christ founded one Church. that this Church consisted of apostles who then appointed successors. These successors continued on in a Church, which led to the development of the Bible. This is not based on circular logic rather than based on a starting point (Jesus Christ) and leading to now, which means I can attest my beliefs to His Church and back them up with the Bible.
The Church isn’t self authenticating, History, Logic, Early Christianity, Non-Christian writings, Heretical writings all lead to authentication of the Church.

(Correct me if I am wrong about your view)
You seem to say this is no more logical that having a Bible which self attests to its authenticity which you can base all your beliefs on. This is circular logic.

You have a Bible, which then you base your beliefs on it as the Word of God since it proves itself to be so, which then means you can base your beliefs on it.

Your example of infallible interpretation would hold water (in the example of the barn, birds and stuff) if there was some sort of agreement between the denominations on interpretation. If you would like I could type the differences that some people have in interpretation as an example, but it is late and I have to go to bed.
If you would like me to I will tomorrow and please show me how a self interpreting Bible would lead all these people to different truths. I believe there is one truth and the Church is the pillar and bulwark of it.

 

[stonewall26]

Ok Yes I know what you are talking about!!! But please stop attacking catholics!!! I am a reformed church man!!! But as soon as I can I am going to be a catholic!!! The Catholics have alot of good things about there church ok!!! They don’t pray to mary they pray with mary, they don’t worship idols just respect Jesus. Also they do Sola Scriptura.

thanks alot

 

[Church_Militant]

stonewall26:

Ok Yes I know what you are talking about!!! But please stop attacking catholics!!! I am a reformed church man!!! But as soon as I can I am going to be a catholic!!! The Catholics have alot of good things about there church ok!!! They don’t pray to mary they pray with mary, they don’t worship idols just respect Jesus. **Also they do Sola Scriptura. **
thanks alot

Hot news flash Dude…We do NOT do Sola scriptura…never have and never will.

 

[Church_Militant]

It is impossible to even begin to prove that things in the Catholic Church that have been proclaimed on the basis of tradition such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the Queen of Heaven dogma are apostolic because the early church is silent on them. Therefore, because of the impossibility of the contrary, Sola Scriptura is vindicated, and is indeed true. That is the whole argument I am presenting.

This is bunk…and I was waiting for you to get through all the mumbo jumbo and get to the point.

The Assumption is apostolic by virtue of early church writings that although they are not canon, are indeed historical and prove that they did indeed hold that this occurred. Look the assumption up on New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia or see this thread here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43566

Queen of heaven is Biblical and based on Revelations 12:1 and following. Disagree with that if you want, but it is most definitely there.

Your lofty pontifical proclamations don’t make SS true and I submit that all the divergent doctrines that have come out of SS testify against it and simply serve to provide endless case evidence of it. If SS was a doctrine of the Holy Spirit then there were would be universal agreement among all it’s proponents as to which interpretations are correct, but that is not so…regardless of the sincerity and moral lives of the people who believe it.

The Catholic Church is far from wrong in what it teaches, (your personal opinion notwithstanding) and the unity of doctrine provided us by the Holy Spirit is a spiritual witness to that fact. We hear arguments like yours many times a week and they all begin pretty much the same and end the same, but you cannot sell us what you don’t have…and that is the witness of the Holy Spirit.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that. (in my best Forrest Gump voice)
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Genesis315]

Church Militant:

Queen of heaven is Biblical and based on Revelations 12:1 and following. Disagree with that if you want, but it is most definitely there.

This also simply follows from the fact that Jesus is King so therefore His mother is Queen.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Church Militant!

The Assumption is apostolic by virtue of early church writings that although they are not canon, are indeed historical and prove that they did indeed hold that this occurred. Look the assumption up on New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia or see this thread here:

That thread only proves my point. Epiphanius is really the only father to present that as a possibility in the first four centuries of the church, and if you read his statement, he may have rejected it. Complete silence for three hundred years makes it impossible to prove that this went back anywhere beyond that.

Queen of heaven is Biblical and based on Revelations 12:1 and following.

That is simply silly. With regards to the fathers who accepted this view as talking about the assumption, in the first six centuries the people of God view of this text is the vast majority. The first proponent of the marian view of this passage was not until the eighth century [Ocuminius]. The only person to make mention of that view is Epiphanius, but he rejected it, and said that we do not know what happened to Mary. There are many other problems with the Catholic interpretation of this text. It says that this woman is in pain to give birth. Pain is the consequence of original sin, and hence, this could not be Mary. The Greek term tiktō very clearly is a term, when used of a woman, that refers to childbirth. Hence, it won’t do any good to use the argument of Mary of the travail. Verse 17 says that she has other children, which would be strange if she were a perpetual virgin. You can see that there is virtually no warrant whatsoever for taking this passage as Mary, and even if there were, it is clear that the early church did not believe that.

Your lofty pontifical proclamations don’t make SS true and I submit that all the divergent doctrines that have come out of SS testify against it and simply serve to provide endless case evidence of it. If SS was a doctrine of the Holy Spirit

then there were would be universal agreement among all it’s proponents as to which interpretations are correct, but that is not so

Well, I guess my entire response to this went completely ignored. Here is what I wrote:

Finally, I think that question #4 is based on a faulty premise. That is, it assumes that all protestants hold to Sola Scriptura. With all of the things going on in pentacostal churches with new revelations, with people claiming God is audibly speaking to them, people who deny the Bible’s condemnation of Homosexuality, abortion, and premarital sex, how can we honestly say that these churches are actually holding to Sola Scriptura? In fact, if you take my church, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and all other reformed churches, and compare it with all of the groups that have scripture plus an infallible interpreter such as the Roman Catholic Church, Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Way International, Moonies, etc., you will find much greater unity between the reformed churches then all of these groups that have scripture plus and infallible interpreter.

The Catholic Church is far from wrong in what it teaches, (your personal opinion notwithstanding) and the unity of doctrine provided us by the Holy Spirit is a spiritual witness to that fact. We hear arguments like yours many times a week and they all begin pretty much the same and end the same, but you cannot sell us what you don’t have…and that is the witness of the Holy Spirit.

It is really interesting you would say that considering there are some Catholics today who do not even believe in inerrancy, and some Catholics who are pro-choice. There are a whole host of different views on various things in Catholicism such as predestination, partim-partim vs material sufficiency, inerrancy of scripture, textual criticism [majority vs. alexandrian], Whether Genesis 1-3 should be interpreted literally or figuratively, and on, and on, and on. So it is not true that you have a unity in doctrine. Your statement is just a statement of faith. It does not interact, and, in fact, ignores everything I wrote. The whole point is, if Sola Scriptura is true, then you have absolutely no basis for saying that you have the witness of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Genesis315 and scylla!

This also simply follows from the fact that Jesus is King so therefore His mother is Queen.

Actually, the queen is the wife of a king, not the mother of a king. Of course, this wasn’t true in Old Testament times as there was polygamy, and that makes this silly. David’s mother was not a queen, neither was Solomon’s mother, and neither was Saul’s mother.

Scylla, you have completely ignored that you are not the only one to try to present this argument. It is absolutely fatal to try to use your argument against scepticism. It, again, will lead to infinite regression. I posted this last night:

Again, Milliardo, you misunderstand the whole argument being put against your position. First of all I don’t agree that you can go to the early church, because I believe that had no idea of many modern day Roman Catholic dogmas, but, be that as it may, you still have not avoided that infinitely regressive argument. Why do you go to history? You can’t answer the question with either the Bible or the Catholic Dogma because the Catholic Church defines them, and hence, you would beg the question. Hence, you have to say it is because of some other reason. And then I will ask you why it is because of that reason, and then you will tell me another reason for the reason that we go to history. Then, of course, I will ask you for the reason, of the reason, of the reason that you go history, and so on… You still haven’t avoided that infinitely regressive argument. You have to have self-attestation because it is a philisophical fact that you cannot solve arguments of skepticism by evidence.

Hence, eventually, you will have to get to a self-attesting authority. Everything you said in your post is completely arbitrary unless one has a self-attesting authority. That circularity is unavoidable. That is what philosophers have said for centuries. There must be an almighty soverign authority that does not depend up on anything else for varification. The question is, is that scripture or the Roman Catholic Church?

I have already answered the argument about the many interpretations of scripture in the last post, and the post before that. As far as the barns and birds and such, it was in response to someone using an argument that I could not know what the scriptures say because I am a fallible interpreter. Second, you do have people who do not believe those things are true about the birds and trees and barns. Pantheists believe that it is all one, and hence, there is no distinction between them. Hindus believe all of these things are an illusion anyway. Hence, no, people are not in agreement about those things, either, and one has to rely on one’s fallible interpretation of those things as well. Hence, again, you fail to deal with what I have posted.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[mtgman]

Church Militant:

The Assumption is apostolic by virtue of early church writings that although they are not canon, are indeed historical and prove that they did indeed hold that this occurred. Look the assumption up on New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia or see this thread here:

Re assumption not being Biblical:
Ps 132:8 Arise, O Lord and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark(Mary) of thy might…

 

[scylla]

I thought I addressed your point very clearly, or maybe I am misunderstanding you. I believe the Church’s authority comes from Jesus Christ, where else does it lead to? I see no such similarity with your point, so please clarify.

Please be a little more clear so I can understand.

I feel I was extremely clear.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello scylla!

I thought I addressed your point very clearly, or maybe I am misunderstanding you. I believe the Church’s authority comes from Jesus Christ, where else does it lead to? I see no such similarity with your point, so please clarify.

Please be a little more clear so I can understand.

I feel I was extremely clear.

Here is the problem. You say that you believe the authority of the Church comes from Christ. I will ask you why. You will say it is because of history of something, and I will ask you why it is because of history. Then you will say it is because of something else, which is reason for going to history which is the reason for the authority of the Catholic Church. Then I will ask you what the reason is for the reason for going to history which is the reason for the authority of the Catholic Church. Then I will ask you for the reason of the reason of going to history which is the reason for the authority of the Catholic Church. Eventually, whatever reason you give there will be an infinite regress of reasons for every reason you bring up for the Catholic Church being true.

Hence, as long as you continue to give evidence, you cannot answer my posts. It plays at the weakness of Catholic epistomolgy, and that is a claim to an ultimate authority that is not self-attesting. As a consequence of dealing with scepticism, you cannot give evidence to support your claim unless you say that there is a self-authenticating authority, in which case we must use indirect proof.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello mtgman!

Re assumption not being Biblical:
Ps 132:8 Arise, O Lord and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark(Mary) of thy might…

First of all, there is no warrant for your parenthetical citation “(Mary)” in this verse. The hebrew term ‘ărôn means “ark or chest.” It doesn’t mean “Mary.” Second, it never says anything about Mary at all in this text. The context is the building and dedication of the temple. Solomon is speaking of the Lord coming and filling the temple which he proceeds to do in 2 Chronicles 7:1-2 [which is where the prayer was prayed] after the prayer was said. There is nothing in the context that talks about Mary, the word doesn’t mean Mary, hence, there is no warrant for your interpretation.

God Bless,
Martin Luther