The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[Nicky777]

Sola Scriptura is a false and heretical teaching. It is the unfortunate fruit of so many schismatic denominations. If there are to be any saved whithin those congregations, it will be because of God’s great mercy and in spite of their heretical religion. JMJ.

 

[thomat65]

This is false because X <— (All data and information) contains data which is accurate.

You say “I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something” is false because there exists information out there which is accurate. How does that follow? Why can you not substitute “I am Roman Catholic because …” with any phrase?

Not everything is an interpretation, some things are logically necessary.

Can you give an example of something which is logically necessary and not requiring an interpretation?

Ok, let’s kill any potential circularity.

That’s post #2, by the way.

Then you have no grounds for judging any doctrine as false.

Can you elaborate? If a doctrine is contained in scripture and someone posits a contrary “doctrine” then how would I not have grounds to judge it as false?

 

[thomat65]

Actually, where in the Bible does Christ say exactly that? That Satan cannot deceive you to the point of disjoining you from Christ?

Nowhere. That’s a summary, personal interpretation, and aggregation of things the bible says.

Where in an infallible RCC document does it say exactly “through this marriage to Jesus, Mary becomes our new mother”?

you don’t believe in Works

It sounds like “Works” needs to be defined, as well as “believe in Works”.

Even the demons believe—and shudder.

It sounds like “believe” needs to be defined as well. Otherwise we risk equivocation since James and John are distinct contexts. Notice I said:

I am believing in Christ in the manner he spoke of

In summary, that means that good works are necessarily flowing out of that belief in contrast to the belief of the demons.

3 points

1. There are many things Jesus did which we are not called to do. Where are we called to imitate Jesus specifically in “honoring” Mary in the sense you’re using?
2. Jesus gave John his mother. Where does it say Jesus gave us his mother?
3. Where do John 3:29 and Revelation 21:2 mention the Church receiving a new mother?

Sola Scriptura is still making a claim about Scripture therefore Scripture must actually support your claim about it

What claim about Scripture are you saying Sola Scriptura is making? And why do you say Scripture must support that claim?

you need to provide evidence that your claim is valid.

1 Timothy 3:14-15 is an example of scripture having the final say over the Church. There are other examples, too. I’m unaware of any examples of the Church having the final say over scripture.

Scripture says it is the written word of God which is infallible. Therefore nothing can rightly contradict it. Scripture does not say this about the Church.

Looks valid so far?

Sola Scriptura is a false and heretical teaching.

I suspect we all have different ideas of what “Sola Scriptura” means. Could you be more specific in your charge?

heretical religion

What are the grounds for you deciding if a religion is heretical?

 

[rightness]

Nowhere. That’s a summary, personal interpretation, and aggregation of things the bible says.

Where in an infallible RCC document does it say exactly “through this marriage to Jesus, Mary becomes our new mother”?

The basic logic of marriage says it? Unless you deny having mother-in-laws when you get married.

It sounds like “Works” needs to be defined, as well as “believe in Works”.

Check the English dictionary. It’s any kind of action including the act of believing.

It sounds like “believe” needs to be defined as well. Otherwise we risk equivocation since James and John are distinct contexts. Notice I said:

I am believing in Christ in the manner he spoke of

In summary, that means that good works are necessarily flowing out of that belief in contrast to the belief of the demons.

No they aren’t distinct context. They speak from one universal family and church speaking from the same truth that comes from God.

And the notion of good works “flowing out of that belief” is false even based on the history of the reformation. What kind of good work was it when protestants persecuted and killed Catholics? Again, they believed, and what flowed from them was sin. There is no automatic eternally goodness that comes from faith alone. You will sin and lose your salvation, and the same applies to Catholics who persecute and murder. It applies to all Christians.

Martin Luther even advises to sin boldly, to commit murder and adultery a thousand times a day, and you will not lose your salvation. Hardly the idea of flowing good works.

1. There are many things Jesus did which we are not called to do. Where are we called to imitate Jesus specifically in “honoring” Mary in the sense you’re using?
2. Jesus gave John his mother. Where does it say Jesus gave us his mother?
3. Where do John 3:29 and Revelation 21:2 mention the Church receiving a new mother?

1. Who gave you the authority to say what beliefs and acts of Jesus we should or should not do? The fact that “Honor thy Mother and Father” is a commandment from God, and Jesus perfectly observed the Jewish laws, is contrary to what you are saying. We are to imitate Jesus perfectly because He does everything perfectly.
2. Did you notice the name John in in John 19:26-27? No, it was beloved disciple. John wrote that knowing it was him that Jesus gave His Mother to. John knew exactly what Jesus wanted and wrote what Jesus wanted, to show that Jesus gave His Mother to the Church and not specifically to John. All of the Church Fathers are in full agreement with this.
3. Already made the point above. In fact, by denying this point, you also deny the Father in the relationship, which is Jesus’s whole mission, to bring the Father to us in a covenant, marital union with the Church. We become adopted children of God this act of matrimony.

 

[Edmundus1581]

As a Protestant, some parts of the Bible didn’t seem to add up to me. After I became Catholic, it all made much more sense. The Bible, and how it arose out of the Church and not the other way around, made all the difference for me.

Same here. It was “reading the Bible for myself” which led me into the Catholic Church, and once I started reading it with Catholic teaching and practice in mind I found so much more in it. That has continued for forty years.

I sometimes see my old Protestant friends proof-texting and debating big issues using inconclusive fragments of scripture and I feel so glad that I’m out of all that.

 

[thomat65]

The basic logic of marriage says it?

I’m just demonstrating that neither of us should think it unreasonable to conclude that an infallible document means something that it doesn’t say word-for-word. Am I being too sensitive to where you said the following?

Actually, where in the Bible does Christ say exactly that?

(emphasis mine)

It’s any kind of action including the act of believing.

Then why do you say this:

if you live by protestant tradition, you don’t believe in Works

Living by anything is an action and thus a “Work” according to your definition. Therefore your statement is false.

Care to restate it? Or we can just let it drop if you like–I’m fine assuming you meant something nuanced that isn’t critical to your point.

No they aren’t distinct context. They speak from one universal family and church speaking from the same truth that comes from God.

Yes, that’s a sense in which they are not distinct. I’m sure we can both also explain another sense in which they are distinct.

The point is: the word “believe” on its own has a semantic domain. When Christ said “whoever believes in me shall never thirst” in one context then it’s quite clear that he’s talking about a sense of “believe” that’s quite distinct from the “believing” in another context that the demons do–and shudder.

There is no automatic eternally goodness that comes from faith alone.

“Faith alone” needs to be defined for us to have meaningful conversation about it. To say “faith alone” can mean two things: (a) a belief lacking works which one would expect to accompany said belief, or (b) the aspect of faith independent of works.

For example: “engine alone” can mean (a) an internal combustion engine known to not function because it lacks any evidence of exhaust fumes or (b) the thing which successfully powers a racecar through the finish line (not exhaust fumes because smells doesn’t supply power–it’s the engine alone).

So… which sense of “faith alone” are you saying has no automatic eternal goodness?

 

[thomat65]

1. Who gave you the authority to say what beliefs and acts of Jesus we should or should not do? The fact that “Honor thy Mother and Father” is a commandment from God, and Jesus perfectly observed the Jewish laws, is contrary to what you are saying. We are to imitate Jesus perfectly because He does everything perfectly.

First, you’re confusing which one of us is making an assertion and which one of us is challenging that assertion. I did not assert that authority. Neither do I need it to challenge you to prove your assertion that “We are called to imitate Jesus”. You are the one who must prove something.

Second, why are you expecting your personal opinion and interpretation to be binding on me?

Third, “We are to imitate Jesus perfectly because He does everything perfectly” is either false or does not support your claim, depending on what you mean by “imitate Jesus perfectly”. If you mean “we are to do exactly all the same things as Jesus” then it’s false: Jesus did many things which are impossible to imitate. If you mean “in whatever we imitate of Jesus, we are to do that perfectly” then that doesn’t support your claim: you’ve left open my question “where are we called to imitate Jesus specifically in ‘honoring’ Mary in the sense you’re using”.

1. Did you notice the name John in in John 19:26-27? No, it was beloved disciple. John wrote that knowing it was him that Jesus gave His Mother to. John knew exactly what Jesus wanted and wrote what Jesus wanted, to show that Jesus gave His Mother to the Church and not specifically to John. All of the Church Fathers are in full agreement with this.

First, it was not “beloved disciple” in some abstract sense. It is “the disciple […] whom He loved”. This is clearly the individual Apostle John. John 13:23. John 19:26. John 20:2. John 21:7. John 21:20. John 21:24.

Second, even if you’re telling the truth that “all of the Church Fathers are in full agreement with this” then is that supposed to make it true? Especially when the very clear meaning of the infallible document itself is that it’s the individual Apostle John?

So again: what in the text requires it to mean Jesus gave the Church his mother?

1. Already made the point above. In fact, by denying this point, you also deny the Father in the relationship, which is Jesus’s whole mission, to bring the Father to us in a covenant, marital union with the Church. We become adopted children of God this act of matrimony.

Restating #3 and building on it doesn’t make it true.

 

[thomat65]

@rightness

This back-and-forth between us started when you started pushing back on this statement of mine:

Therefore Satan cannot deceive me to the point of disjoining me from Christ. 1 John 5:4

Why are you so eager to try and convince me that my salvation is not secure in Christ? Do you believe that salvation is to be found in some other name than Christ’s? Do you believe that once grasped by Christ it’s possible to be pulled from his hand? Do you actually believe that God’s salvation can be lost once it’s granted to someone?

 

[rightness]

You know, I just read your replies, no sources, no facts, and I just realize you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. We can bring out all the logical conclusions and scriptural facts through thorough research, and you will do your minimal to just continue the argument because not only have you thought yourself better than the collective agreement of the Church Fathers, you thought yourself better than the Apostle John and his intention.

I will submit to Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthian 11:19, and I will pray for your humility.

God Bless.

 

[Nicky777]

Where in the bible does it say the bible ALONE. Is the source of faith and teaching. Remember the Holy bible comes from the Catholic church. There was only sacred tradition before sacred scripture. They both work in tandem one with the other. I don’t understand why you refuse to acknowledge and accept history. This argument gets so old. Try to see it through eyes of humility, instead of impressing me with you vocabulary.

 

[catholicray]

You say “I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something” is false because there exists information out there which is accurate. How does that follow? Why can you not substitute “I am Roman Catholic because …” with any phrase?

I’m not following your question. My point here is that some information in x is accurate which logically leads to Catholicism. The same can not be said for your position.

Protestants only have a fallible list of books especially when they reject the authority of the tradition responsible for the list. There is not a coherent line of reasoning you can offer to suggest otherwise.

Sola Scriptura logically dictates that Protestantism is false. You don’t have to be Catholic because of that but remaining Protestant is to embrace an illogical loop. That is accurate data which allows for deduction.

Importantly, this no longer means “all doctrine must be supported or found in scripture”

Either your definition is a contradiction or these words mean what they mean. Therefore I said you have no means to judge doctrine.

You’re trying to eat your cake and have it too. If Sola Scriptura does not have to be found in Scripture then I say neither does anything else in order for it to be authoritative. Just balancing the playing field.

Not to mention you have posited the definition of Sola Scriptura right after you suggested all doctrine does not have to be found in Scripture. That doesn’t escape the problem.

You are actually saying all doctrine does not have to be found in Scripture and all doctrine is found in Scripture. (Highlights the contradiction). You only suggested the first part to protect the false doctrine.

Where in the cosmos are you finding the idea that only doctrine in the Bible is final? It’s not in the Bible, your final authority. Furthermore what about false doctrine one finds through poor interpretation? Who is the judge of that?

The answer is you are. Your ultimate authority is logically yourself. You’ve not corrected the problem at all. You only moved the goalpost.

Got a better definition?

 

[Nicky777]

You realize you make yourself the soul authority on the interpretation of scripture. This is precisely why there are so many heretical denominations out there. Each believing they have the truth. You all are Christs sheep outside the sheepfold. Come on home to the Catholic church. The one True church, we are waiting with open arms. God love you.

 

[thomat65]

no sources

No. I’ve been linking to my sources this whole time.

you’re arguing for the sake of arguing

No. I’m defending my position from the counter-arguments you started and continue making.

you will do your minimal to just continue the argument

No. I’ll do my minimal to defend against counter-arguments. Often a very effective defense is to force the offense to justify their position. Other times I’ll try to steer conversation to a focused end. I don’t do this perfectly, but that is my intention.

not only have you thought yourself better than the collective agreement of the Church Fathers, you thought yourself better than the Apostle John and his intention.

You have provided zero documentation about what you claimed was the absolute total agreement of the Church Fathers.

If an infallible document is clear and a fallible group of men clearly contradict it, then guess who I’m not going to believe? But who knows, maybe their supposed position doesn’t clearly contradict it. In that case they won’t be very useful for your purpose.

I will pray for your humility

Yes I’m proud. In fact, I’m ashamed to be among the most self-proud men. I’m thankful that God’s declaration of righteousness is based on the merits of Christ, not me. And I’m amazed that Christ would humble himself all the way down to a humiliating death by crucifixion on my behalf. Christ’s humility is utterly beyond reach.

---

Where in the bible does it say the bible ALONE. Is the source of faith and teaching.

Nowhere. But I don’t think that’s relevant. This is why I suggested that we define “Sola Scriptura”: it sounds like you think it means something other than I do.

impressing me with you vocabulary.

I’m not sure why you think this.

Remember the Holy bible comes from the Catholic church. There was only sacred tradition before sacred scripture. They both work in tandem one with the other.

Believe it or not, this is another series of things that need to be defined to meaningfully talk about them.

What do you mean by “comes from”? The RCC wrote the scriptures? The RCC produced the table of contents? The RCC was looking on while the Holy Spirit wrote them?

What do you mean by “sacred tradition”? Only things preserved in people’s memories until they appeared in infallible documents? The RCC’s “living transmission”?

What do you mean by “before”? The relative places in time? Priority and superiority?

What do you mean by “work in tandem”? We can know traditions to be true or false when scripture addresses them? The scriptures cannot be understood without tradition dictating their meaning?

 

[thomat65]

I’m not following your question. My point here is […]

This clears it up. I thought you were trying to give further justification. But now I can tell it was just a summary.

Protestants only have a fallible list of books […] There is not a coherent line of reasoning you can offer to suggest otherwise.

“Protestants only have a fallible list of books”–sort of. I fallibly believe I have a fallible list of infallible books. Summarized as I fallibly believe I have something infallible.

It sounds like you fallibly believe these things: the RCC has infallibly produced a list of books; the books themselves are infallible. Summarized as you fallibly believe you have something infallible.

Both are subtypes of the same thing.

Also I don’t believe I have a fallible list of just books. I believe I have a fallible list of infallible books.

If you want to demonstrate incoherence, it might be easier with propositional steps like this:

1. The Protestant table of contents might have included a book full of lies among the books which are infallible
2. It’s very likely that has happened
3. Therefore, Protestants very likely will interpret the other books with a bunch of lies
4. Therefore, Protestants very likely will not get the correct meaning

…although this can’t be your position because the Protestant canon is a subset of your canon. So what concise orderly sequence of logic would you construct?

“I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something”

“I believe the correctness of Roman Catholicism ought to be judged by personal interpretations of some things”

So why do you say these two things are false about yourself?

 

[thomat65]

If Sola Scriptura does not have to be found in Scripture then I say neither does anything else in order for it to be authoritative. Just balancing the playing field.

Not to mention you have posited the definition of Sola Scriptura right after you suggested all doctrine does not have to be found in Scripture. That doesn’t escape the problem.

You are actually saying all doctrine does not have to be found in Scripture and all doctrine is found in Scripture. (Highlights the contradiction).

Now it’s my turn to not get what you’re saying. How am I saying that all doctrine is found in scripture?

I think since I turned to the “new” definition I’ve been saying this:

1. At least some doctrines are found in some writings
2. The doctrines found in those writings are judged by those writings

How does it follow that all doctrine must be found in scripture?

And I think I showed that my definition of Sola Scriptura is in scripture?

[Why do you say] only doctrine in the Bible is final? It’s not in the Bible, your final authority.

I think you’re missing the part where I said:

the final authority in all that they address

1. The bible is the final authority on all it covers
2. The bible covers at least some doctrines
3. Therefore, the bible is the final authority on at least some doctrines
4. Therefore, if some doctrines are not covered by the bible, then the bible is not the final authority on them

Now, I do tend to distrust and ignore “doctrines” that are not covered. And I feel safe doing this since all that is necessary for salvation is covered.

Who is the judge of [false doctrines]?

The answer to “by whose judgment do interpretations stand or fall before God” is: God.

The answer to “how can anyone be convinced of the improperness of an interpretation?” is: by being convincingly shown that the infallible documents mean something else.

Which do you mean?

You say that in such cases the ultimate authority is logically one’s self. I’ve been at pains to get you to recognize you ought to charge yourself with this.

---

you make yourself the soul authority on the interpretation of scripture.

This is false. I try to let the more clear scriptures interpret the less clear ones. Unless you mean “you make yourself the sole authority on what you believe” in which case: you don’t?

 

[catholicray]

The bible covers at least some doctrines

This is false. Via Sola Scriptura, doctrine is always a summary claim about what Scripture says.

A claim about what Scripture says is always based on interpretation.

Therefore all doctrine via Sola Scriptura is dependent upon interpretation of Scripture.

Scripture itself is doctrine.

Roman Catholicism does not put that kind of strain on Scripture. Scripture may be foundational but tradition must also be accounted for when determining doctrine. Sometimes tradition alone can account for doctrinal decisions.

 

[catholicray]

“I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something”

You’re also very wrong here. I am Roman Catholic because logic dictates that it is the authentic Christian Church. We’ve been dealing with the question of canon but it does not matter Sola Scriptura is logically incoherent even if you could know the canon of Scripture without contradicting the instruction of Sola Scriptura. Your definition does not fix the issue. Even if I was okay with Sola Scriptura it makes no difference. There are Churches who practice that doctrine who still uphold a lot of Catholic teaching and tradition.

Sola Scriptura has resulted in division to the point that your particular Christianity is held in contempt by millions of Christians who disagree with you. Every denomination is heretical depending on who you ask. You’re a heretic no matter how you believe. So I see no compelling reason to change my position based on someone telling me that Scripture proves I’m a heretic for being Catholic.

I’d rather be apart of that historical monument to Christ where-in I can participate fully, in this life, in His body blood soul and divinity. What could you offer me better than what I already have if I believed as you believe?

 

[Cathoholic]

rightness to @thomat65 . . .

You know, I just read your replies, no sources, no facts, and I just realize you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good insights.

I thought that too but I was afraid there would be lurkers that might have bought into some of these faulty arguments.

Maybe I will get back in here. Maybe not.

But as I said . . . Good insights from you here rightness.

 

[Nicky777]

Everything has already been defined my brother. But keep searching with eyes of humility and a prayerful attitude. The door will be opened to you. God love you.

 

[thomat65]

Via Sola Scriptura, doctrine is always a summary claim about what Scripture says.

A claim about what Scripture says is always based on interpretation.

Therefore all doctrine via Sola Scriptura is dependent upon interpretation of Scripture.

Scripture itself is doctrine.

I’m sorry, this isn’t making sense to me.

• If doctrine depends on an interpretation of scripture, then how can scripture be doctrine?
• Why must doctrine always be a summary claim of what scripture says unless you’re still using your definition and not mine?

Roman Catholicism does not put that kind of strain on Scripture.

A strain? Surely you meant to use another word in reference to the infallible scriptures upon which the whole world and all our thoughts could be stacked without threat of collapse?

So I’m still wondering these things:

How am I saying that all doctrine is found in scripture?

How does it follow that all doctrine must be found in scripture?

So what concise orderly sequence of logic would you construct?

Because those things are apparently critical to your rebuttal’s success.

---

I am Roman Catholic because logic dictates that it is the authentic Christian Church.

Ok… You are Roman Catholic because you fallibly used some logic and fallibly interpreted some historical writings, some of which were fallible themselves. So how does that make me very wrong to say this about you:

“I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something”

Because given the same documents and facts it is quite possible for one to use their fallible faculties a different way and not be Roman Catholic. And many are Roman Catholic in spite of not seeing all the facts and documents you saw. Therefore the primary cause is your personal reasoning and personal interpretation not facts and documents. That the RCC ever holds infallible authority is your opinion based on your personal interpretation of a collection of true and false things independent of the actual truth or falseness of the matter. You believe your opinion is quite justified, but you could be wrong, no?

I’d rather be apart of that historical monument to Christ where-in I can participate fully, in this life, in His body blood soul and divinity. What could you offer me better than what I already have if I believed as you believe?

At the risk of sounding like a troll: actual full participation in Christ’s death and life, body and blood. Not participation in his divinity… sorry I can’t promise that you’ll become a god, but you could receive by proxy all the benefits of Christ being God. The actuality of these things is what we both believe is at stake and what we should be saying is up for the taking.