The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MichaelP3 said:
And no! If Jesus were to walk the earth today he would be appalled by ALL that is going on INCLUDING the Catholic Church. We all have so much to be ashamed about.
Click to expand...
Jesus was appalled by ALL that was going on with the Jews too! But that did not change the TRUTH, that salvation was from the Jews (as he told the Samaritan woman.) You are confusing human failing with God’s Design and THE Church He instituted.
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to the manuscripts currently in the modern world’s possession not being EXACTLY from the first century or something else? Otherwise I have no idea what you are inferring or what is “Good to know” that you came up with there? And then we obviously have a different view of what oral teaching means.
 
Last edited:
catholicray said:
Sola Scriptura is clearly defined as Scripture being the only infallible rule of faith. When asked, by what authority do you interpret Scripture, the practitioner is quick to suggest that the Holy Spirit is the only authority required.

Doesn’t the infallibility of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christians logically contradict the position that Scripture alone is infallible. Or do Sola Scripturist not hold that the Holy Spirit dwelling in them is infallible?
Click to expand...
Those who hold to Sola Scriptura would say that the Holy Spirit is indeed infallible, and that Scripture is the revelation of the Holy Spirit. That being said, while we agree that the Holy Spirit is infallible, and that the Holy Spirit works within us, man is not infallible, and frequently is disobedient to the revelation of the Holy Spirit. However, someone who understands the historical context of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would not say that there are not other authorities that can assist with the creation of doctrine and practice. These authorities though would not be considered to be infallible, and if they come into conflict with scripture, would be judged on the basis of what scripture says on the area of contradiction. I hope that clarifies. The issue is not one of tossing aside things like tradition, but putting them in their rightful place, in submission to God’s revealed word.
 
Last edited:
Dan_Defender said:
There’s another glaring fault in that logic. If the Holy Spirit guides them, how come there are 10,000+ Protestant denominations, each disagreeing with the other in Bible interpretation?
Click to expand...
For the same reason that the Catholic Church can have one Pope, and one supposed official interpretation of scripture, and yet you can have Catholic lawmakers pass abortion laws, Catholic laypeople get divorced, etc. Sinful man, either doesn’t know God’s revealed will, or is willfully suppressing it in order to advance his own agenda. Nothing new under the sun here.
 
Last edited:
You’re contradicting yourself. The Holy Spirit is revealed by Scripture and if you’re Christian there is a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is an infallible authority external to Scripture which assists fallible men. I’m sorry but you failed to detain God to Scripture alone for me. Would you care to explain further?
 
catholicray said:
You’re contradicting yourself. The Holy Spirit is revealed by Scripture and if you’re Christian there is a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is an infallible authority external to Scripture which assists fallible men. I’m sorry but you failed to detain God to Scripture alone for me. Would you care to explain further?
Click to expand...
No, my friend, scripture is the product of the Holy Spirit, and as such, it is infallible.
 
Last edited:
Also let me ask you another question. Does Scripture have the authority to forgive your sins?
 
catholicray said:
Also let me ask you another question. Does Scripture have the authority to forgive your sins?
Click to expand...
No one has claimed that it does, or made the claim that forgiving sins is the role of scripture. That would not be an accurate understanding of what Sola Scriptura addresses. Your question is irrelevant. Are you saying however, that a priest must be infallible to forgive your sins? Seems like an odd take to me.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is denying what Scripture is I reject your attempt to detain the Spirit of Christ to Scripture alone. As if Scripture does not teach a direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Christians.
 
catholicray said:
Nobody is denying what Scripture is I reject your attempt to detain the Spirit of Christ to Scripture alone. As if Scripture does not teach a direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Christians.
Click to expand...
Nor did I attempt to do so, I fear you are erecting a straw man argument as I said nothing remotely approaching what you are accusing me of saying.
 
You are suggesting the Bible is the Sole infallible rule of my Faith are you not? Forgiveness of sins falls under the scope of faith. How do you define faith?
 
Last edited:
You are misunderstanding what that means. Scripture is the sole possession that the Church has that is God-breathed. It’s purpose is to lead one to faith in Christ by revealing the work of Christ. As such, it norms what we teach about God’s will, and about Christ’s work. That is the role we are talking about when we speak of the infallibility of scripture.

Scripture is used for teaching, reproof, correction, for training in righteousness. This is the role to which we are speaking when we discuss the infallibility of scripture.
 
Last edited:
So you’re definition of Faith is merely doctrine then. Trying to get on the same page here. Please clarify.
 
catholicray said:
So you’re definition of Faith is merely doctrine then. Trying to get on the same page here. Please clarify.
Click to expand...
No, my definition of faith is not doctrine. My definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the sole infallible means of correction, reproof, training in righteousness, and as such is the norm by which all doctrine is measured. It is the rule or measure of the corpus of doctrine.
 
That’s fine but you haven’t substantiated that claim. You’re approach to Scripture alone is a statement of authority. We would agree that any interpretation of Scripture that was not arrived by the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit indwelling in man would be subject to error would we not?
 
catholicray said:
That’s fine but you haven’t substantiated that claim. You’re approach to Scripture alone is a statement of authority. We would agree that any interpretation of Scripture that was not arrived by the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit indwelling in man would be subject to error would we not?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by me not having substantiated my “claim.” I think that the Roman Catholic apologetic assertion that scripture was written in a manner to be unclear to the reader is a false assertion.
 
Last edited:
The full meaning of any passage in Scripture is not clean and cut otherwise John Chapter 6 would convince you to join me in the Eucharist. There is an interpretive process period and sometimes it is indeed difficult and requires much study. You still haven’t answered the question. Are you trying to avoid the logical conclusion?
 
Last edited:
catholicray said:
The full meaning of any passage in Scripture is not clean and cut otherwise John Chapter 6 would convince you to join me in the Eucharist. There is an interpretive process period and sometimes it is indeed difficult and requires much study.
Click to expand...
I don’t join you in the Eucharist because I don’t believe in your understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrificial re-offering of Christ, because scripture speaks clearly about the one sacrifice made for all time. So, I agree that the interpretive process can be done apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and is demonstrable in the addition of doctrine that changed the understanding of the Eucharist.

By the way, I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
So, I agree that the interpretive process can be done apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit
Click to expand...
We disagree here in a fundamental way. Of course you can interpret Scripture apart from the Holy Spirit. Atheist do this all the time. Do I respect their interpretation? Nope.

Fundamentally any interpretation that is not done in communion with the Holy Spirit is subject to error. Not that it is in error but I would not consider it infallible and binding on all Christians. Only that interpretation that is in communion with the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit (an infallible authority external to Holy Scripture) may be deemed infallible. I think you would agree with me here. But then you would conclude an additional infallible authority that is necessary for the faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top