The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[catholicray]

@Itwin

Before I dig into your position would you mind reading the entire thread because I don’t want to start all over. Otherwise thanks for the reply.

 

[catholicray]

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

So let’s start with this. Why do I reject this as a logical loop?

First I reject it on the grounds that by the very definition of it you must prove it by Scripture before it is binding according to itself. So I say to you, prove that doctrine according to that doctrine.

Did you see the logical loop?
Perhaps not.

Then you quote your verses in Scripture to “prove” it. So I ask you how do I “know” the verses you cite mean what you say they mean?

Then we begin to debate the verses and I posit alternative meaning.

Then I ask by what method do I “know” that your interpretation is more correct than mine?

See still no proof?

So we attack it from a different angle.

How in the first place have you come to “know” what books belong in the New Testament? Perhaps books are missing that would support my argument more?

Some would say, because Scripture says that it is Scripture! But a lot of things claim to be Scripture. You haven’t answered the question.

We argue enough and the best objective answer is that the New Testament is historically two things. Gods written word and a Catholic tradition. We also note that the first Christians couldn’t have possibly practiced this doctrine which is logically verifiable.

Now I am a firm believer that what is true must actually be true. That means it is true universally. The fact is this doctrine could not possibly be practiced by the first Christians so are they saved or what?

I’ll leave it there for now.

 

[De_Maria]

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?

Have you heard the defense that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine and therefore does not need to be found in Scripture? I brought it up on this forum and, as you can see, some Protestants chimed in right away.

How would you respond to that?

 

[catholicray]

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Well in this particular definition or whatever they would call it, it would clearly terminate the “practice” as necessary for salvation. The argument is stronger if it is indeed doctrine.

 

[AmericanPatriot]

Sola scriptura refers to the Reformation conviction that only the bible (e.g. canonical scripture) can serve as an ultimate authority for the church though they did not rule out church tradition as having value rather insisting that it be subordinate to the teachings of Scripture.

They asserted the Holy Spirit as the divine agent who superintended the writing and compilation of canonical scripture and the instrumental cause who enables believers to interpret this scripture correctly.

There is no logical dichotomy in holding canonical scripture infallible while also asserting reliance on the Holy Spirit as final arbitrator of interpretation (see Hermeneutics) of it. Note that they accept place, function, and other criteria such as tradition and reason as vitally important to the interpretative process.

It’s after all qualifications are made (including interpretation) that scripture remains, for biblical and evangelical Christianity, their supreme teacher and arbiter in belief and practice.

You may disagree with their position, and for the sake of argument let’s say that you’re right. However, the point here is that there is no logical dichotomy between holding that canonical scripture is infallible (after it’s interpreted correctly) and also holding that the Holy Spirit is the final authority in interpreting that scripture correctly.

Sola Scriptura

 

[De_Maria]

Sola scriptura refers to the Reformation conviction that only the bible (e.g. canonical scripture) can serve as an ultimate authority for the church

How is that NOT redundant? I mean, if you say “sole” authority or “ultimate” authority, doesn’t that just mean that you consider it the authority above all others?

though they did not rule out church tradition as having value rather insisting that it be subordinate to the teachings of Scripture.

But why? If it is not a teaching of Scripture and in fact, contradicts Scripture. Let me show you. Scripture says:

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Scripture says that the speech of holy men is guided by the Holy Spirit. How is that of less authority than saying that Scripture is inspired?

They asserted the Holy Spirit as the divine agent who superintended the writing and compilation of canonical scripture and the instrumental cause who enables believers to interpret this scripture correctly.

There is no logical dichotomy in holding canonical scripture infallible while also asserting reliance on the Holy Spirit as final arbitrator of interpretation (see Hermeneutics) of it.

If there is no logical dichotomy of holding canonical Scripture as infallible while asserting reliance on the Holy Spirit, why do Protestants hold that there is a logical dichotomy of holding the Catholic Church as the infallible Teacher of God’s Word while also asserting reliance on the Holy Spirit?

Note that they accept place, function, and other criteria such as tradition and reason as vitally important to the interpretative process.

I have found that to be sorely lacking in my discussions with Protestants. Frequently, they will make observations like, “where does it say Purgatory in Scripture?” Or “where do you see the word “pope” in there?”

It’s after all qualifications are made (including interpretation) that scripture remains, for biblical and evangelical Christianity, their supreme teacher and arbiter in belief and practice.

That is a logical incoherence. They have fooled themselves into believing that their own prejudices do not influence their interpretation of Scripture. But the very act of reading Scripture nullifies the idea of Scripture alone.

You may disagree with their position,

Adamantly.

and for the sake of argument let’s say that you’re right. However, the point here is that there is no logical dichotomy between holding that canonical scripture is infallible (after it’s interpreted correctly) and also holding that the Holy Spirit is the final authority in interpreting that scripture correctly.

Then, you have proven that there is no logical dichotomy between holding that the Church is infallible and holding that the Holy Spirit is the final authority in Teaching the Word of God. Especially since it is the Catholic Church which wrote the New Testament Scriptures infallibly and also infallibly discerned which Old Testament books are inspired and should be included in the Bible.

 

[catholicray]

I understand your position and I saw the same logical conclusions. I fail to see any particular usefulness of Sola Scriptura except to allow schism or (as I do think Protestants are brothers not in full communion), with all mercy, a stepping stone to the truth as it does encourage bible study.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

For most Protestants, the Church is the body of all believers. The context your using would mean Magisterium for some of us arm-chair theologian folks.

I don’t need to define the Church, I can point to it: The Roman Catholic Church.

However, the Church does include all baptized believers (to some extent, however imperfect.) This leaves out a pretty significant slice of Protestants viz: “born agains,” Baptists, and other Protestants that do not believe in Baptismal regeneration. And their numbers are increasing daily.

In any event, for purposes of argument “THE” Church I am referring to is the Roman Catholic Church, which includes all of the various ‘rites.’ It is ‘visible,’ being a shining light upon a hill. It is not a murky miasma church of “believers.” (Believers in what??? - whatever??)

 

[AmericanPatriot]

I did not defend/am not defending sola scriptura, but merely answered catholicray’s original question regarding whether or not there is a logical dichotomy between an assertion that canonical scripture is infallible (correctly interpreted) and an assertion that the Holy Spirit is the final authority in interpreting scripture correctly. You may disagree with the assertions themselves, of course, but there is not a logical dichotomy between these two assertions. If I were to attack the doctrine of sola scriptura, I would attack the core assertion itself which is what trained Catholic apologists do.

I can only edit existing posts until the time restriction runs out on new users being able to post a maximum of nine new posts during their first day on the forum. Perhaps dilemma is a better word to use here; a situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or unsatisfactory.

One can believe that scripture is infallible after being correctly interpreted. One can also believe the Holy Spirit is the final arbitrator of correct interpretation. There is no classical dilemma per the rules of logic between those two assertions.

You can disagree with one or both of the assertions; however, there is no logical dilemma forcing you to choose between them. That’s what I’m saying.

 

[catholicray]

I’ve actually seen reference to a logical dichotomy by a professional apologist without going into the details we have on this thread.

As a friendly conversation how would you defend the position that there is not a logical dichotomy?

My position is that ultimately saying Scripture Alone does indeed conflict with the fact of the necessity of the Holy Spirit as a rule/authority of faith.

By the fact that it is actually true that the Holy Spirit can be identified as the final rule/measure by which all rules are measured rather than Scripture.

John 16:13 RSVCE

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

 

[Emeraldlady]

catholicray:

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

No. Scripture was written by men who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Scripture’s authority derives from its author, who is God (working through human writers). When Protestants say that Scripture alone is infallible, we are not claiming that God is fallible. That would make no sense. How can a fallible God inspire and reveal an infallible Scripture. Protestants mean that Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine. Traditions can be fallible. Councils, church writers, theologians, etc. can err. Only Scripture, in the Protestant view, can be trusted to be an infallible source of doctrinal truth–which all other sources of doctrine should be measured and tested against.

Is there a difference between the men who were divinely inspired to compose Scripture and men who explain the true meaning of what has been written down? For example, the men who defined the ‘incarnation’ to mean that God is both truly human and truly divine as opposed to the various other interpretations of Scripture that were around at the time. When men declared this interpretation as doctrine, Catholics would say that these men were guided by the Holy Spirit making that decree an infallible decree.

Do you believe that God continued to inspire men in making infallible doctrines after defining the infallible canon of Scripture?

 

[catholicray]

I agree with you on that question Emeraldlady. My point is that while I know Protestants believe God is infallible Sola Scriptura logically contradicts that belief. I think your question highlights the problem. For who can truly say God to this day can not speak infallibly through fallible men without positing a limit on the power of God?
According to Sola Scriptura he can’t. My issue is with the doctrine not the believer.

 

[De_Maria]

I did not defend/am not defending sola scriptura,…

My mistake. It sounded to me as though you were.

but merely answered catholicray’s original question regarding whether or not there is a logical dichotomy between an assertion that canonical scripture is infallible (correctly interpreted) and an assertion that the Holy Spirit is the final authority in interpreting scripture correctly.

That’s not what he said. I quote:
6d

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?

In other words, if you hold that you can understand Scripture because you have the indwelling Holy Spirit. And you hold that the Holy Spirit is infallible. Why do you not claim that you can understand the Scriptures infallibly?

Do you know of any Protestants who claim to understand Scripture, infallibly?

 

[Emeraldlady]

I agree with you on that question Emeraldlady. My point is that while I know Protestants believe God is infallible Sola Scriptura logically contradicts that belief. I think your question highlights the problem. For who can truly say God to this day can not speak infallibly through fallible men without positing a limit on the power of God?
According to Sola Scriptura he can’t. My issue is with the doctrine not the believer.

I know. Sola Scriptura is held as the infallible denial that God reveals Truth to men in any other forum than the Scriptures. But since Sola Scriptura itself isn’t revealed in the Scriptures it has no leg to stand on. My thought is to form a question that gets to the bottom of what you and I see here as a logical dissociation.

 

[catholicray]

I’m right there with you. Once you see the circular reasoning in the argument you can’t unsee it. I’ll admit though it was by the grace of God and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Truly it is the most massive logical loop I’ve ever become aware of.

I did think your question was accurate. I found it did what you were trying to do.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I know. Sola Scriptura is held as the infallible denial that God reveals Truth to men in any other forum than the Scriptures.

Ok, I HAVE to chime in with a pet peeve of mine in this thread. Scripture is NOT “infallible” it is inerrant.

The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture " held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

Instead of infallible try using: accomplished, certain, incontestable, incontrovertible, indisputable, indubitable, irrefragable, irrefutable, positive, sure, unanswerable, unarguable, unchallengeable, undeniable, unquestionable.

Only a person (namely the Pope) and an institution (namely the Church) are infallible. It is a charism of the Holy Spirit preventing error to be taught. IOW it is related to teaching. AND, it’s a negative charism, not a positive “power.”

I mean even cosmetics are infallilble in their commercials!

 

[De_Maria]

Ok, I HAVE to chime in with a pet peeve of mine in this thread. Scripture is NOT “infallible” it is inerrant.

That’s true. But we, those of us who talk to Protestants frequently, venture to go where they are. For some odd reason, they call Scripture infallible when they mean inerrant and that nomenclature has become cemented in their culture.

The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture " held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

You’re preaching to the choir on this forum.

Instead of infallible try using: accomplished, certain, incontestable, incontrovertible, indisputable, indubitable, irrefragable, irrefutable, positive, sure, unanswerable, unarguable, unchallengeable, undeniable, unquestionable.

And accomplish what? Adding another level of misunderstanding to an already difficult interdenominational discussion?

Only a person (namely the Pope) and an institution (namely the Church) are infallible. It is a charism of the Holy Spirit preventing error to be taught. IOW it is related to teaching. AND, it’s a negative charism, not a positive “power.”

WE know and believe that. PROTESTANTS don’t.

I mean even cosmetics are infallilble in their commercials!

You might profit from a bit of St. Paul’s advice:

1 Cor 9: All Things to All. 19Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. 23 All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Calvin tore the walls by denying the sacraments

Unless I’m mistaken, Zwingli was the one who sort of led to the tearing down of sacraments. Calvin was more finding a middle ground between Luther and Zwingli.

 

[HopkinsReb]

vivnes:

Calvin tore the walls by denying the sacraments

Unless I’m mistaken, Zwingli was the one who sort of led to the tearing down of sacraments. Calvin was more finding a middle ground between Luther and Zwingli.

Calvin spiritualized the Sacraments; Zwingli denied them.

 

[vivnes]

Cardinal Manning in his book on the Sacred Heart, denoted Calvin for tearing the sacraments from the Church, as “tearing down the walls”