The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[Hodos]

Again, I agree that the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity is indeed infallible. I do not agree that the authority that you are about to uphold is always in complete communion with the Holy Spirit and therefore is not infallible, that the authority you are about to uphold is the body to whom the scriptures were given for the express purpose of instruction, reproof, and correction. In other words, the Church is the audience for the reproof and correction, as much as she is the one who is giving the reproof and correction by means of the scriptures. In other words, the Church in its rightful place is submissive to the word of God, not its master.

 

[catholicray]

You’re doubt about the Catholic Church does not substantiate your claim that Scripture is the Sole infallible rule of Faith. It does not logically follow that your doctrine is necessarily true.

 

[Bushum]

Oral tradition means the passing on of a story or teachings orally. None of us think that Moses was actually there with Adam and Eve or Abraham right? Do you believe the Old Testimant is true or that it is logically flawed due to oral tradition? That’s why Paul said hold fast to traditions both written and oral. That’s in the Bible, written down. Jesus told The Apostles to
go into the world and teach what he taught them, that would be orally. He didn’t say read the book that I wrote. John also said that Jesus did many other things that aren’t written down so obviously that’s a lie. I honestly can’t see how anyone can rationalize that away but I’m sure you will.

 

[Hodos]

The same scripture that I quoted to define our understanding of Sola Scriptura says that it is the Church that will need the reproof of the scriptures because they will follow after other things. That is substantiation.

 

[catholicray]

What is logical is that your doctrine must be true in order to critique the Church the way you do and you have not shown that it is true. You’ve agreed there is at least one necessary authority that is infallible and is NOT explicitly Scripture in order to determine doctrine.

 

[catholicray]

You need to substantiate that key word “Alone”.

 

[Hodos]

[/quote]

You need to substantiate that key word “Alone”.

No I don’t. Because the key word Alone does not define what the doctrine says. It says scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. That phrase is a unit. Ripping the word sole out of the context of the entire phrase only demonstrates your continued misuse or redefinition of the historic use of the term sola scriptura to advance a talking point yet fails to address the doctrine.

 

[catholicray]

Let me ask you another question. If the first writing of Paul was not written until 15 years after the ascension of Christ and the first Christians practiced Sola Scriptura during those 15 years, then where in the Old Testament (scriptura) did the Christians find the authority to add to the Word of God?

 

[catholicray]

It’s not out of context. Sola Scriptura clearly says that the bible alone is infallible authority for my faith.

 

[catholicray]

It’s doctrine supposedly binding on all Christian faithful. So it’s you’re burden to show in Scripture that Scripture “Alone” is the infallible authority of our faith.

 

[Hodos]

Let me ask you another question. If the first writing of Paul was not written until 15 years after the ascension of Christ and the first Christians practiced Sola Scriptura during those 15 years, then where in the Old Testament (scriptura) did the Christians find the authority to add to the Word of God?

Directly from the word of God. Note how the prophets say continually, the word of God came to me…I am perfectly comfortable with God revealing himself to man and gifting us the scripture as the permanent record of that revelation faithfully transmitted from age to age. Again though, notice that the consistent thread here is that God is the infallible one, not man.

 

[catholicray]

So you would posit that an external infallible authority gave authority to men to write the New Testament correct? Where is that authority now? Did it just vanish? How does that authority function for my faith today? Or would you say it doesn’t?

Doesn’t seem like the first Christians practiced Sola Scriptura though?

 

[Hodos]

So you would posit that an external infallible authority gave authority to men to write the New Testament correct? Where is that authority now? Did it just vanish? How does that authority function for my faith today? Or would you say it doesn’t?

Doesn’t seem like the first Christians practiced Sola Scriptura though?

No, God still exists and works through his creation, just as he did when the Word became flesh. That being said, God never conferred infallibility upon man. Again here, we see you attempting to place an authority between God and his Word, where the Word was given to the audience of the Church to instruct, reproof, and correct them. If the audience requires this instruction, reproof, and correction, she can’t be infallible by definition.

 

[catholicray]

You’re speaking past my question rather than addressing it head on. Thus, you haven’t answered my question.

 

[ATraveller]

When asked, by what authority do you interpret Scripture, the practitioner is quick to suggest that the Holy Spirit is the only authority required.

Depends on who you ask and who answers.
The Holy Spirit’s gifts for believers are different. Some are given teaching and prophecy. Others do not have those.
This is from a Baptist seminary (yes, Baptist):

First, it must be pointed out that while the historic doctrine of sola Scriptura has always maintained that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of the faith, it has never entailed an outright rejection of church tradition. In fact, the men who firmly held to this doctrine, not the least of whom were Martin Luther and John Calvin, regularly and favorably quoted theologians from the church’s history. Tradition itself was never viewed as a negative thing by the Reformers, only destructive when it was used to supplant or share authority with the Word of God. What proponents of this position [i.e. outright rejection of tradition] maintain is not sola Scriptura, but what has been called nuda Scriptura (“naked/bare Scripture”; NS hereafter), an understanding of Scripture with no ecclesial context.

To assume we can come to the text without bias or presupposition is terribly naïve, and the supposition that I cannot learn from the thoughts and reflections of so many godly men and women throughout the ages is simply arrogant. How could one read Calvin’s Institutes or the Belgic Confession or Augustine’s City of God and come away unmoved, thinking that such writings do little more than offer the fallacious speculations of fallen men?

https://ftc.co/resource-library/blog-entries/sola-scriptura-or-nuda-scriptura

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Again, I agree that the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity is indeed infallible. I do not agree that the authority that you are about to uphold is always in complete communion with the Holy Spirit and therefore is not infallible, that the authority you are about to uphold is the body to whom the scriptures were given for the express purpose of instruction, reproof, and correction. In other words, the Church is the audience for the reproof and correction, as much as she is the one who is giving the reproof and correction by means of the scriptures. In other words, the Church in its rightful place is submissive to the word of God, not its master.

Your answers are thoughtful and cogent.
However, “infallible” Scripture (1 Tim 3:15) has said:

so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Protestants like to propose an adversarial position between the Church vs. scripture. However, the TRUTH, is the Church AND Scripture AND Tradition are now, and always have been the 3 pillars that Catholicism rests upon.

Once you yank Scripture away from the two other pillars: the teaching Church and Tradition, an ADVERSARIAL dichotomy is created, that was NEVER meant to be, never was, and still is not now.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Doesn’t the infallibility of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christians logically contradict the position that Scripture alone is infallible.

Even by Sola Scriptura, there is the understanding that Scripture is infallible by coming from God. It isn’t denying the infallibility of God, including of the Holy Spirit dwelling within the Christian.

Of course, though, the Christian isn’t infallible, even with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We, as people, have a problem of resisting the Holy Spirit’s guidance, perhaps most clearly seen in the incomplete canon Protestants use or the fact that they aren’t joined with the Catholic Church.

It’s just wild to listen to a Scholar like James White make such a massive blunder.

I’m not the most well-read of James White’s writings, but part of that comes from being really unimpressed with him when I was first researching the major Catholic/Protestant debates. Beyond a frequent lack of charity, he seemed to make a very consistent blunder of judging certain matters under the assumption that certain Calvinist teachings were true, which were themselves up for debate. You get the same problem on CARM a lot.

 

[vivnes]

Doesn’t the infallibility of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christians logically contradict the position that Scripture alone is infallible?

The subjective, or the knower, perceives the known. The known is true.
Therefore the knower sees all truth.

This bad logic, I presented denotes many individuals among what we term the Tyranny of Relativism.

The issue is not scripture alone, its the exaggeration of the subjective. Catholics believe the divine economy uses matter such as sacraments to bring divine encounter to the matter of the body and soul. Calvin tore the walls by denying the sacraments, with an exaggeration of the election of predestination. The purpose in predestination takes on the assumption of God the Son in human flesh.

When we pick up the bible and unite with its matter, we partake in a living word, who will, and did take a place among men. The Bible needs a standpoint to point back at the reader. The all-knowing who perceives the read, heart to heart. We are not masters of the Bible, the Bible masters us.

 

[catholicray]

So I am still seeing a logical contradiction. I’ve had Protestants preach to me this same concept. The logical problem is that everyone you study will indeed have their own bias. So they are just moving the goalposts. Now they can successfully combine other bias with their own when they interpret Scripture. This doesn’t result in a neutral understanding of the Word of God and by that I’d reject any notion that their teaching is binding.

The difference in Catholicism would be the Church is ordained by God with the task to bind and loose. So hidden behind the sinful and bias humans who hold the particular offices is God’s own will for the world.

 

[Hodos]

Protestants like to propose an adversarial position between the Church vs. scripture.

I don’t know any Protestant who proposes an adversarial position between Church and scripture. As I demonstrated above, the actual position of protestants is far more nuanced than that. God revealed his word ultimately through Christ, and also through his spoken word which was written for our benefit and the faithful transmission of the record of Christ’s work. The Church is called to be submissive to this Word, and to proclaim this Word, but it is to proclaim this Word in accord with what was actually delivered and revealed to us. The transmission of the oral word that conflicts with the written word (which provides us the norm by which we are to judge the oral proclamation of the word) is unfaithful and fallible. And as I demonstrated above scripture was provided to the Church for the purpose of instruction, reproof, and correction of the Church itself. This is why I have said the Church is submissive to the word of God, not above it. However, that relationship is a far cry from the charge you are making that we are erecting an adversarial relationship between the two. The Church has the responsibility to proclaim the word, but to do it rightly. The scriptures were providing to norm what we proclaim.