The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

My personal belief about the canon is typical of Protestants.

First of all. There is nothing “typical” concerning the beliefs of Protestants. And as soon as I have attempted to say that, I’ve been met with quick correction. (“Luther doesn’t speak for me. Nor any other Protestant!”)

Second of all, even if you assert the Protestant Canon, the obvious question is WHY?

And as soon as you begin trotting out reasons, I’m going to ask you WHERE THOSE deciding variables are explicitly stated in Scripture.

And I am going to ask, with ancient Hebrew being exclusively a consonantal language, HOW can you read one sentence in the Old Testament much less the whole thing (without oral tradition)?

There really are no answers to this dilemma for a Bible Christian other than admitting they assert the authority of the Catholic Church.

And the only reason good enough to affirm that authority is because of Jesus.

And the only way you believe what Jesus said and did was an unending stream of 2000 years of reliable witnesses to His Resurrection.

Martyrs. Witnesses.

Protestantisms are a johnny-come-lately tradition of men thomat65.

The best you can argue is that ONE Protestant Church is the one true Church. But that would undermine the other 9900 deniminations, or 44,000 denominations depending upon how you define “denomination” in this context.

It doesn’t work thomat65.

And putting off my questions while thinking about it, isn’t going to change this fact.

Sola Scriptura, sola fide, denials of Baptism, denials of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, denial of sacramental marriage (I told one of my minister buddies to tell THAT to his wife)?

None of this stuff works.

The Church and especially the Sacraments are a living extension of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He has not left you or I orphans thomat65.

And each generation of Christians do not need to re-invent the wheel.

I would suggest going to a Catholic Church near you right now where they have Eucharistic Adoration and just sitting in the pew, in front of the PHYSICAL sacramental presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, asking Jesus to come into your life in a new and bigger way. Ask Him to lead you wherever He wants you to go.

Tell Him, you are ready to make a radical committment to Him because He is God.

You can do all of this even spiritually, even if you are not asking Him in the Blessed Sacrament. You will get special graces just from being there.

Look. I sense a great love for God in you, and God is calling us ALL, to a deeper committment.

God bless thomas65.

Cathoholic

 

[catholicray]

Here’s the trap: by demonstrating that you trust the RCC because you trust the scriptures first ,

You’ve made an error in your assessment. Based on research I trust the historical testimony of the New Testament. That is the first step. This in no way tells me what the canon of Scripture is. <— No trap

At this point I have confidence in 27 books to a degree but I don’t know if there are more books or less in the canon as some of the books are not historical accounts.

The rest of my argument follows. The point being I have some confidence in the historical testimony found in the New Testament but the writings are not confirmed as Scripture based on that confidence. Nor do I have a knowledge of the canon before the Church confirms it.

Therefore in order:

1. I trust Jesus is the highest authority
2. I trust He founded a Church (singular)
3. The Church defines the canon
4. I trust the definition of the canon
5. My canon of Scripture is the Church’s canon of Scripture

This could be far more detailed if necessary but there are no logical conundrums.

 

[rightness]

I’m a little confused by your use of the word “Bible”. Are you saying that the words of scripture themselves were made infallible through Tradition, as though they were fallible for some period of time before Tradition conferred infallibility? Or are you saying the RCC table of contents, from the moment it was first fashioned, was infallible through Tradition?

Scriptures didn’t exist until they were written by Oral Tradition. Does that make it clear? They are and always been infallible because the source which they came from, which is tradition, is infallible.

I think you could more directly make this point with John 14:26 “the Holy Spirit will bring to your remembrance”, meaning memories of things would exist in their heads until the Holy Spirit later brings those memories to the fore.

But I don’t understand how this is a refutation of Sola Scriptura. Unless it’s because:

rightness:

Christians in 2000 years will need that direction

In that case I’m beginning to suspect more and more that’s why some Protestants qualify the definition of Sola Scriptura with “things necessary for salvation”.

You left out the part where I said Jesus left us a church, founded on Peter, the Papacy, as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

Without trust in the Papacy, protestants fight amongst themselves, fumbling with “truths”, not knowing what’s right or wrong, and further diving into heretical beliefs. Sola Scriptura had already failed even when Martin Luther was alive. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli banded together in Geneva to form an institution to stop their own followers from interpreting Bible against them, and even then, these three protestant founders couldn’t even agree amongst themselves as Luther hated Zwingli for his lack of belief in the Real Presence.

Now we have 40,000 protestant denominations all claiming to have the sole authority of interpretation through the Bible. Heck, my Anglican friends’ church just broke off from their original church just 10 years ago over interpretations of same-sex blessings within scripture.

 

[thomat65]

There is nothing “typical” concerning the beliefs of Protestants.

I see your point. I should have been more specific and said “my personal belief about which books are canonical is typical of Protestants”.

And as soon as you begin trotting out reasons, I’m going to ask you WHERE THOSE deciding variables are explicitly stated in Scripture.

There are some circularities to be aware of and to avoid. And I think you’re right if Sola Scriptura is defined as “scripture is the final/only authority on all doctrines”. But I’m not convinced that’s the “right” definition–I think “Protestantism” (whatever that means) tends to define it differently, including the caveats “it’s the authority on everything necessary for salvation” and other nuances (perhaps implying that having the correct table of contents is not necessary for salvation). I suspect that changes the game, but to be honest I haven’t had enough time to reason all the way through that.

I would suggest going to a Catholic Church near you right now where they have Eucharistic Adoration and just sitting in the pew, in front of the PHYSICAL sacramental presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, asking Jesus to come into your life in a new and bigger way. Ask Him to lead you wherever He wants you to go.

I appreciate your graciousness here. But to be perfectly transparent, I would be sinning if I were to do that. I already ask him to lead me, and if I were to turn to the RCC being convinced as I am that it is in error in crucial ways then I would in spirit be acting in rebellion to God.

How would you take it if I recommended you to cease participating in the Eucharist because I believe it merits nothing, and urged you to cling to Christ by faith alone which is what unites one to Christ?

 

[thomat65]

You’ve made an error in your assessment.

I don’t believe I have. I understand what you mean about not having the canon until later. But please trust me when I say that “the scriptures” in what you quoted of me is referring to “some writings” (#2 in my little list way up there), not “the entirety of the scriptures” or to “the table of contents”. The only outward evidence I can highlight to show this is the case is that I recognized how loaded a term “scripture” is in that #2 and it was sloppy of me to continue using it after that.

So here’s your list:

1. I trust Jesus is the highest authority
2. I trust He founded a Church (singular)
3. The Church defines the canon
4. I trust the definition of the canon
5. My canon of Scripture is the Church’s canon of Scripture

Tell me if I’m incorrect in fleshing it out this way using your words:

1. You trust Jesus is the highest authority
2. You trust that some writings are his words which carry his highest authority
3. You interpret those writings to mean Jesus founded a Church (singular)
4. The Church defines a table of contents
5. You trust that table of contents
6. You now treat other writings as authoritative because they’re in that table of contents

I’m not making up #3. You said it here:

I then read that Jesus founded a Church.

And the clear meaning is “I then interpreted from those writings that Jesus founded a Church”.

So let me run through the “trap” again (with some minor modifications that you’re just going to have to trust are made in good faith to reflect my original intention):

Here’s the trap: by demonstrating that you trust the RCC because you trust the scriptures those writings first , you are showing that you believe the actions and products of the RCC may be judged by a personal interpretation of scripture some writings. You judged them [the actions and products of the RCC] to be correct and worth submitting to, but it’s a judgement nonetheless.

Stated another way, you demonstrated that you personally consider some writings to have authority over the RCC logically prior to any authority you recognize in the RCC. And I think that’s totally correct.

 

[thomat65]

Now we have 40,000 protestant denominations all claiming to have the sole authority of interpretation through the Bible.

This isn’t true. I’ve heard variations of this repeated several times in this and other threads, but it’s not correct and rings dead.

I know of many local churches belonging to PCA, OPC, Southern Baptist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Non-denom, Anglican, Lutheran, etc denominations all in wonderful fellowship and communion with one another. For these people, membership in the Body of Christ is not participation in an organization or a denomination or a ceremony but a common union with Christ through faith.

And I’m unaware of any of them claiming to have sole authority of interpretation.

Sorry for picking on you specifically, but I think it’s time people realized statements like that just aren’t useful.

 

[catholicray]

Stated another way, you demonstrated that you personally consider some writings to have authority over the RCC logically prior to any authority you recognize in the RCC . And I think that’s totally correct.

No I still think you’re misunderstanding me. Scripture is purely historical until you have a source which defines them as otherwise. Remember technically the Bible is a preselected collection of historical documents if we approach them without bias.

There are many more writings we can consider as well. All of these can be assessed historically as well. Many of these historical writings point to a Church. Many of them explicitly point to a Catholic Church. You can’t avoid it historically. It’s even in the early creeds.

Logically we can historically accept Jesus as the highest authority based on historical evidence without assuming the writings are Scripture. Logically we can conclude historically that there was a Church. We can go deeper and look for other bodies of “Christians” in the first several centuries after Christ. Those other bodies die out. The Catholic Church remains.

Without bias we can examine our current day. There are many bodies of Christians. The problem with Protestantism is that it can’t consistently attach itself historically to the early Christians. The earliest traces of the reformation are found in the 13th century. Other connections I have seen made beyond that are connected to bodies of “Christians” that died out. This is problematic because you can find traces of the Catholic Church unending going back to the second century. You already have a clear example of the Pope in the fourth century with little to no dispute at that time as to his position.

 

[catholicray]

There’s also the problems that arise when applying Sola Scriptura to the first Christians before there was ever a list of what the New Testament should be. Without following tradition there is not a logical way to accept more Scripture if it is Scripture at all. This dictates that the New Testament is tradition. That’s an important dilemma. Is the tradition that reveals the New Testament authoritative or not? If it is then it is equal in authority to the Scripture it reveals. If it is not than the Scripture it reveals is not really authoritative.

Ultimately Protestantism is the product of the reformation historically. It is a product of the 16th century. The most consistent representation of Protestantism is that God willed reform of the Catholic Church. There are logical problems with that position though because it assumes a valid authority of the Catholic Church for a long time. During its valid authority declarations are made especially concerning the Eucharist that severely undermine the Protestant churches you know and love today. Not to mention that the reformation failed to truly rid the world of the influence of Rome.

I’m going to summarize but more can be said. Historically speaking the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox are the strongest candidates for being the Church written about in the New Testament. They both define a New Testament canon. So if I trust in Christ and I trust in one of these two institutions then and only then do I have reason to believe the New Testament is actually Scripture.

Edit: I’d like to amend the last statement to say then and only then do I have reason without bias to believe the New Testament is actually Scripture.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 on the definition of sola Scriptura . . .

But I’m not convinced that’s the “right” definition . . .

OK.

Where in Scripture is your definition of sola Scriptura?

And if it is extra-Scriptural, it merely brings us right back to the same set of questions.

Is THAT DEFINITION infallible?
Why accept it as such if it’s not?

If it is, what OTHER extra-Scriptural teachings are infallible?

Who gets to be the infallibilty “referee”?

If it’s me, myself, and I, that just puts us back to relativism because somebody else will say something different (and there will be no means you have available to “settle” who is right or go outside that for some OTHER teaching if they are BOTH WRONG).

It just doesn’t work.

Sola Scriptura is a self-contradiction.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

I would suggest going to a Catholic Church near you right now where they have Eucharistic Adoration and just sitting in the pew, in front of the PHYSICAL sacramental presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, asking Jesus to come into your life in a new and bigger way. Ask Him to lead you wherever He wants you to go.

.

thomat65’s response?

I appreciate your graciousness here. But to be perfectly transparent, I would be sinning if I were to do that. I already ask him to lead me, and if I were to turn to the RCC being convinced as I am that it is in error in crucial ways then I would in spirit be acting in rebellion to God.

But I never asked you to do that.

You are changing one of the premises of my argument.

Go to Adoration to pray for guys like me if you think I am wrong.

I’m OK with that. (I think if you sit in front of Jesus with Him PHYSICALLY there, praying long enough, you will get a “Son burn” and we all want “Son burns”.

.

thomat65 . . .

How would you take it if I recommended you to cease participating in the Eucharist because I believe it merits nothing . . .

I would reject it.

But I never told you
that your Protestant “prayer”
or your Bible reading,
or you praise to God,
or anything else you already do,
“merits nothing” or that you whould “cease participating” in whatever you are doing now.

As a matter of fact, I encourage you to CONTINUE in your prayer, Bible reading, praise, etc.

In an Adoration Chapel ANYONE can just walk in and pray.

My suggestion had to do with WHERE. No substatial change suggestions coming from me.

No. God takes care of that kind of thing.

My suggestion remains.

.

thomat65 . . .

(What if I)

“urged you to cling to Christ by faith alone which is what unites one to Christ?”

I would respond, Romans 10 says you cannot have faith without in part the WORK of “men” preaching.

“Faith comes from hearing the word preached to you” (or some such - I did not look it up).

I would say there are three kinds of works (Protestants often artificially and unknowingly whittle it down to two as it is easier to argue against).

Old Covenant works on your own which cannot save you.

New Covenant works on your own which cannot save you.

And New Covenant works on with and IN Christ which WITH CHRIST you can now sow and reap unto eternal life (WITH your supernatural faith and hope. Not apart from them).

. . . “678” as a mnemonic . . .

GALATIANS 6:7-8 7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8
For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption;
but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

I would say: "Let’s begin a thread on the justification issue (one of my all time favorite subjects) and talk about it. And if you want, we can limit ourselves to the writings of St. Paul. Or we can go deeper.

"Let’s begin a thread on the justification issue (one of my all time favorite subjects) and talk about it. And if you want, we can limit ourselves to the writings of St. Paul. Or we can go deeper.

Are you willing to participate if I begin one?

 

[thomat65]

No I still think you’re misunderstanding me.

With respect I maintain what I stated.

I think this might be easier and more direct if you could point to one of these items as not fairly representing what you’ve said:

Tell me if I’m incorrect in fleshing it out this way using your words:

1. You trust Jesus is the highest authority
2. You trust that some writings are his words which carry his highest authority
3. You interpret those writings to mean Jesus founded a Church (singular)
4. The Church defines a table of contents
5. You trust that table of contents
6. You now treat other writings as authoritative because they’re in that table of contents

Perhaps the word “writings” should be replaced with “writings and other historical documents”?

Now to quickly stave off the other things you’ve written:

Scripture is purely historical until you have a source which defines them as otherwise.

I think this is playing fast and loose with words. For example, this statement can mean “the writings started out being fallible historical documents until infallibility was infused into them” which is impossible, or it can mean “the table of contents could not be known infallibly until they were infallibly revealed” which is meaningless without regard to its correctness.

Many of them explicitly point to a Catholic Church. You can’t avoid it historically. It’s even in the early creeds.

The word “Catholic” has changed meaning over time. I consider there to be a living and active “catholic” Church today with roots traced back to Christ. It’s just not the RCC and the union with roots works differently.

The problem with Protestantism is that it can’t consistently attach itself historically to the early Christians.

This statement needs further definition. There are many non-Christian descendents of Ishmael. They can attach themselves historically to people before the early Christians. So what?

Without following tradition there is not a logical way to accept more Scripture if it is Scripture at all.

This statement is a little confusing. What do you mean “accept if more Scripture is Scripture at all”?

Do you mean “there’s no way to know if an infallible writing is infallible without tradition”? This seems inconsequential at best. And I’m not sure it’s true… Christ mentioned that his sheep would simply recognize his voice.

Or do you mean “there’s no way for a writing to be infallible without tradition”? This is either false or a tautology depending on what “tradition” means.

it assumes a valid authority of the Catholic Church for a long time.

It does? What kind of authority do you suppose it assumes? The authority to be infallible? What representation of Protestantism assumes that the RCC was infallible for centuries?

 

[thomat65]

Is THAT DEFINITION infallible?
Why accept it as such if it’s not?

I’m going to jump in here. Why do you say something can only be accepted if it’s infallible?

You are changing one of the premises of my argument.

Go to Adoration to pray for guys like me if you think I am wrong.

Please accept my apologies. I misunderstood what you were saying.

I would say: "Let’s begin a thread on the justification issue (one of my all time favorite subjects) and talk about it. And if you want, we can limit ourselves to the writings of St. Paul. Or we can go deeper.

"Let’s begin a thread on the justification issue (one of my all time favorite subjects) and talk about it. And if you want, we can limit ourselves to the writings of St. Paul. Or we can go deeper.

Are you willing to participate if I begin one?

Yes!! I would love that. I don’t think it would need to be limited to St. Paul’s writings. James and Peter also wrote infallibly (in spite of what Luther thought about James). I would enjoy it most if it were limited to the New Testament, but even that I’ll leave up to you.

 

[catholicray]

• You trust that some writings are his words which carry his highest authority
• You interpret those writings to mean Jesus founded a Church (singular)

This is misrepresenting my position. I do not consider the writings to be His words before I know the writings are Scripture. They are only a historical witness of His words until I trust the Church. As purely historical documents I don’t know who the author is in many cases nor do I know that everything is accurate. That would be a biased historical approach. There is also the historical witness of the Catholic Church which is vast. There is good unbiased historical reason to connect the Catholic Church to Jesus.

Then the dilemma arises. I have sound reason to suspect that the Catholic Church is a product of Jesus.

I’m left with two options. I can accept Jesus as Lord without knowing what the canon of Scripture is (concerning the New Testament). Or I can accept Jesus as Lord and the Catholic Church as His Church and know what the New Testament is. Those are my options concerning bias.

And the testimony I depend on to determine that the Catholic Church is the one he founded is based on far more historical evidence than is found in the New Testament alone. Both points are wrong I’m afraid.

 

[rightness]

rightness:

Now we have 40,000 protestant denominations all claiming to have the sole authority of interpretation through the Bible.

This isn’t true. I’ve heard variations of this repeated several times in this and other threads, but it’s not correct and rings dead.

I know of many local churches belonging to PCA, OPC, Southern Baptist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Non-denom, Anglican, Lutheran, etc denominations all in wonderful fellowship and communion with one another. For these people, membership in the Body of Christ is not participation in an organization or a denomination or a ceremony but a common union with Christ through faith.

And I’m unaware of any of them claiming to have sole authority of interpretation.

Sorry for picking on you specifically, but I think it’s time people realized statements like that just aren’t useful.

You do know that, in North America alone, Anglicans have more than 20 denominations, all with different liturgies and beliefs, ranging from Anglican Catholics who pray the rosary and believe in the Transubstantiation (which is against their Article 28, but hey, good for them) to Evangelical Anglicans who bless same-sex marriages, have female priests, and don’t celebrate the Eucharist.

The denomination my friends belong to, the Anglican Network in Canada (ANIC), allows the ordination of female bishops, but because they split off with the Anglican Church of Canada 10 years ago over same-sex blessings, they joined with the communion called the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which contains Anglo-Catholic denominations who don’t allow the ordination of female priest or bishops, therefore, the ANIC had to give up the ordination of female bishops.

Even within the same communion, their beliefs are fundamentally different and fighting each other.
That’s an extremely wide spectrum of Anglicans who were supposedly locked in Elizabeth I’s institution of “via media”, the middle way.

 

[catholicray]

This is another reason Sola Scriptura fails. Even if you accept it you do not necessarily remove yourself from Catholic practice. The fact that Protestants disagree on the Eucharist is especially a strong case against the merit of Sola Scriptura.

 

[rightness]

This is another reason Sola Scriptura fails. Even if you accept it you do not necessarily remove yourself from Catholic practice. The fact that Protestants disagree on the Eucharist is especially a strong case against the merit of Sola Scriptura.

I should further this point that even at the time of Martin Luther, he would despise his “partner”, Zwingli, because Zwingli didn’t believe in the Real Presence while Martin Luther would teach Consubstantiation. Then you have Calvin who taught about the Real Presence, but not in the same way as Luther.

Even the Protestant founders argue amongst themselves with Sola Scriptura.

 

[catholicray]

Not to mention that historically the reformation was riddled with Catholic practice only rejecting a few key practices such as the Pope. Over time you see new factions whittling away the Catholic practices and further distancing themselves from Rome in an attempt to maintain consistency in their own dogma. It’s not a very compelling testimony historically.

 

[thomat65]

You do know that, in North America alone, Anglicans have more than 20 denominations, all with different liturgies and beliefs

I understand what you’re saying. I didn’t know specifics but I’m not surprised.

But you did literally write “all claiming to have the sole authority”. The mere presence of one tiny denomination that does not claim sole authority makes this false. No biggie, you were probably exaggerating.

Then there’s my perception of the spirit and idea behind this that I see from multiple people. Often I hear people say something like “look at all the confusion. Therefore it’s false!” and that’s false: there are instances lacking the cited disorder, and the presence of confusion does not necessitate falsity.

Finally, there’s often an idea that the disorder is orders of magnitude larger than it is where the person being addressed is concerned. Speaking from personal experience I’ve been members of two different churches in two different states belonging to two different denominations (Southern Baptist and Independent Fundamental Baptist). We have some Presbyterians (PCA) in our congregation now. I have Presbyterian (PCA) family members. I have Anglican friends. I have often been helped by publications from the OPC. I know some Lutherans for whom I have a lot of respect. Same for some non-denominational folk. We’re all in total agreement on what’s necessary for salvation and on how the work of Christ is applied to someone, etc. And we enjoy wonderful fellowship.

Some Catholics I know have been surprised to hear about the widespread unity that does exist within certain circles. It’s not like it’s some big wild zoo out there.

Other Catholics I know might be surprised to hear about the widespread disunity that exists within certain Catholic circles.

But I understand what you’re saying. Yes, there does exist widespread disunity.

 

[rightness]

I understand what you’re saying. I didn’t know specifics but I’m not surprised.

But you did literally write “all claiming to have the sole authority”. The mere presence of one tiny denomination that does not claim sole authority makes this false. No biggie, you were probably exaggerating.

… (shortened for word limit)

But I understand what you’re saying. Yes, there does exist widespread disunity.

I guess I exaggerated that point you pointed out, however, the unity you describe doesn’t matter as long as Sola Scriptura exists in people’s hearts.

For example, when the US Episcopal Church allowed same-sex blessings, this was their reasoning: http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ToSetOurHope_eng.pdf

As I read it, I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing. It was difficult to see how a fairly large organization could twist Scripture to fit their views of same-sex marriage and ignore critical teachings of the Bible that go against that sin. Speaking on the same local Anglican Church in my area, a bishop would storm out of the conference when the votes were in to favour same-sex blessings. Afterwards, there would be an all out legal battle over four churches in Vancouver Canada over millions and millions of dollars, much of which were donated by parishioners leaving the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC). The ACC won the battle and successfully, in my opinion, stole the money of faithful Anglicans. I even read that one of the bishops who separated would lose his income so that he couldn’t support his wife’s failing health, and she had passed away.

Now, the next and more pressing issue, the loss of faith due to the infighting between Christians. In Vancouver Island, a population of 750 thousand, was 40% Anglican. Now, the latest census reported 1.2% Anglican. A more general census of American religions compiled by David Eagle, a sociologist on religion (

https://twitter.com/x/status/1085393708663615488

) would show that protestants are having a sharp decline. Many who left mainline protestantism has bolstered the conservatives, but many left completely, and even conservative protestantism is declining. The main issue is the rise of the “None”, whether they are Atheists or Agnostics.

Do you know where most of the churches that get sold and abandoned go to? Sometimes they go to non-denominational Christians, but a lot of the times, they get bought up by Muslims for their Mosques. Our disunity in scripture is causing the Body of Christ so much damage that we must repair it.

Imagine us as a family, and God is the father who taught us one teaching. Could you say we’re a happy family believing in the same thing? Jesus would pray, in John 17, for us to be one (verse 21). Sola Scriptura is ripping the unity apart, and the only way to heal it is to do what Jesus said in Matthew 16:13-19.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . . .

Why do you say something can only be accepted if it’s infallible?

Because if you accept the writings as infallable you need to have an infallible authority telling you those writings are infallible.

(And what good is FALLABLE list of infallible books? Maybe it missed on every single one?)

Unless you just want to say, “Well it SAYS it’s infallible so it MUST BE infallible.”

Aside from Scripture never saying that if one were to believe that, then the conundrum turns into something like . . .

Cathoholic: This very post is infallible.

Believer of everything . . . .

“Wow! Cathoholic’s post MUST BE infallible. It says so right up there!”

Of course this would be non-sense.

You don’t think that my writings are infallible (nor do I), but IN PRINCIPLE, one who appeals to “it says so” is going to have to consider shenanigans like that.

There are other “religious” books that claim to be infallible.

Mary Baker Eddy’s book of Christian Science is one if I am not mistaken.

You and I would both reject this as equally preposterous. (At least I hope you would.)

You need an infallible list of books if you are to truly recognize those books as infallible.