The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[AmbroseSJ]

Ambrosesj seemed to think I was calling the actual Scriptures ‘infallible’ as opposed to ‘inerrant’. When we are talking of something being infallible though, we are talking of a decree or a doctrine or some sort of statement made.

I wasn’t intending to single out anyone in particular, but it seemed to me that the word “infallible” was being bandied about improperly and with abandon.

Even Wikepedia includes “citation needed.” So even by their low standards, it seemed to need better proof.

Infallible is STRICTLY a Catholic word, and can be used in only two situations; The Pope, and the Church. So even when discussing dogmatic truth, it is not the dogmatic truth that is infallible, it is the teaching Church, which proclaimed the dogmatic truth that is infallible. The dogmatic truth is simply Dogma or Doctrine. This applies to Protestants as well. In fact I think you would have a very hard time finding an official Protestant statement using the word “infallible” to describe any doctrine of theirs.

But that doesn’t mean that the ignorant world hasn’t decided to appropriate the word for its own ridiculous uses. As I said, even cosmetics claim it in their commercials!

 

[De_Maria]

Emeraldlady:

Ambrosesj seemed to think I was calling the actual Scriptures ‘infallible’ as opposed to ‘inerrant’. When we are talking of something being infallible though, we are talking of a decree or a doctrine or some sort of statement made.

I wasn’t intending to single out anyone in particular, but it seemed to me that the word “infallible” was being bandied about improperly and with abandon.

Even Wikepedia includes “citation needed.” So even by their low standards, it seemed to need better proof.

Infallible is STRICTLY a Catholic word,

You’re apparently objecting about imprecision in language and then proceed to be imprecise in what you are saying.

No. Infallible is an English word. The meaning of which is the main component of a doctrine of the Catholic Church which elaborates on the idea that the Church’s doctrines do not contain error and helps support the doctrine that the Church was established by Jesus Christ.

and can be used in only two situations;

On the contrary, the word infallible can be used in many ways.

incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.

“doctors are not infallible”

synonyms: unerring, error-free, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, perfect, true, uncanny, precise, accurate, meticulous, scrupulous; More

• never failing; always effective.

“infallible cures”

synonyms: unfailing, never failing, always effective, guaranteed, dependable, trustworthy, reliable, sure, certain, safe, sound, tried and tested, foolproof, effective, efficacious;

informal sure-fire

“infallible cures for a variety of ailments”

The Catholic Church uses the word extensively, but not exclusively, in their jargon for explaining certain
truths.

• (in the Roman Catholic Church) credited with papal infallibility.

“for an encyclical to be infallible the Pope must speak ex cathedra”

The Pope, and the Church. So even when discussing dogmatic truth, it is not the dogmatic truth that is infallible, it is the teaching Church, which proclaimed the dogmatic truth that is infallible.

I think that’s just your personal preference. I frequently see terminology like “infallible doctrine” or “infallible truth” used to describe other than the Catholic Church.

The dogmatic truth is simply Dogma or Doctrine. This applies to Protestants as well. In fact I think you would have a very hard time finding an official Protestant statement using the word “infallible” to describe any doctrine of theirs.

But that doesn’t mean that the ignorant world hasn’t decided to appropriate the word for its own ridiculous uses. As I said, even cosmetics claim it in their commercials!

Well, I hope you’re not calling the Catholic Church ignorant. Because many of her documents describe certain teachings as “infallible”.

Here’s just one.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition …

 

[ltwin]

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.

No, I don’t. The key word in this classic Anglican formulation is “necessary to salvation”. All things necessary to salvation are stated in scripture. Sola Scriptura is not stated in scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a belief necessary for salvation. That’s a good thing for Catholics.

The fact is this doctrine could not possibly be practiced by the first Christians so are they saved or what?

In addition to the Old Testament, the first Christians had the gospel preached to them by Christ, his Apostles, and their close associates. They had the letters of Paul circulating relatively early, and as the canon was written book by book, the churches received them as the written word of God.

 

[ltwin]

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

I believe that Scripture teaches me what I must do to be saved. If someone were to teach me something that contradicts or seems to contradict what is written in Scripture, then–even if he claimed infallibility–I would defer to Paul: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Now, Paul is long dead, but he continues to preach to us today through his preserved writings.

That being said, I believe, as Scripture teaches, that Christ has placed apostles, shepherds, teachers and prophets within the church to prepare us for the work of the ministry. However, if these are guided by the Holy Spirit, their teaching will conform to Scripture, because Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and God does not contradict himself.

 

[catholicray]

I hope you understand you have not disagreed with me. You’ve merely used synonyms to say the same thing.

If Sola Scriptura is not necessary for Salvation then the interpretation that posits Sola Fide is unnecessary by association.

Soooooo are you Catholic?

Edit: To be clear in case we’re going down a rabbit hole, no one is arguing about the salvific quality of the doctrine. Hopefully that will clarify what I have said.

 

[Fauken]

Soooooo are you Catholic?

If you look at his profile, it says he’s Pentecostal.

 

[catholicray]

I know I was teasing. You would have known if we were having this discussion in person. Thanks for the helpful info though.

 

[Fauken]

Ah, sorry!

 

[ltwin]

I hope you understand you have not disagreed with me. You’ve merely used synonyms to say the same thing.

I’m sure I disagree with you on a lot of things. As it relates to your comment, I disagree with your characterization of Sola Scriptura and your argument that it is self-refuting.

If Sola Scriptura is not necessary for Salvation then the interpretation that posits Sola Fide is unnecessary by association.

If Scripture is God-breathed and Sola Fide is taught in Scripture, then Sola Fide would be binding on the consciences of all men whether one believed in Sola Scriptura or not.

The question, of course, is whether Sola Fide is taught in Scripture or not? Catholics defer to the teaching authority of their church, whose interpretation of Scripture and sacred tradition says it isn’t. Protestants defer to the principle of Sola Scriptura, and their interpretation of Scripture says it is.

 

[catholicray]

Yes I’m well aware but Sola Fide is dependent on Sola Scriptura being true. Your talking in circles. I’m sorry we disagree.

 

[MichaelP3]

Okay I think I understand what you are saying. Thanks.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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

I believe that Scripture teaches me what I must do to be saved. If someone were to teach me something that contradicts or seems to contradict what is written in Scripture, then–even if he claimed infallibility–I would defer to Paul: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Now, Paul is long dead, but he continues to preach to us today through his preserved writings.

That being said, I believe, as Scripture teaches, that Christ has placed apostles, shepherds, teachers and prophets within the church to prepare us for the work of the ministry. However, if these are guided by the Holy Spirit, their teaching will conform to Scripture, because Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and God does not contradict himself.

How do you regard the continual work of the Church since the canon of Scripture was established, to denounce errors of interpretation and to pronounce doctrines such as the divinity of Christ? Do you believe Scripture could sustain the Christian Church without recognising the authority of men to definitely denounce and pronouce on the interpretations of Scripture?

For example the interpretation that we now refer to as Arianism which denies the divinity of Jesus, had a force of credibility among common people who had only ever known the pagans to ascribe divinity to human beings and material things. It was seen as the serious offense of idolatry.

I imagine that if I lived in that time that if I didn’t recognise the authority of the human leaders of the Church to teach such a thing, that I would also have denied it.

Do you recognise that role of Church leaders to oblige us in specific interpretations?

 

[De_Maria]

No. Scripture was written by men who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Agreed.

Scripture’s authority derives from its author, who is God (working through human writers).

Did the human author’s have any authority?

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.

Agreed.

Protestants mean that Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine.

If that is true,

1. Why doesn’t Scripture say that?
2. Why doesn’t Scripture mention the doctrine of sola Scriptura, at all?

Traditions can be fallible.

If you believe that the Holy Spirit can inspire man to write infallible Scripture, why won’t you believe that the Holy Spirit can guide men to fashion infallible Traditions?

Councils, church writers, theologians, etc. can err.

Can they be guided by the Holy Spirit? Or is the Holy Spirit done with inspiring men to do anything?

Only Scripture, in the Protestant view, can be trusted to be an infallible source of doctrinal truth–

But Scripture doesn’t mention that doctrine. So, why do you believe that doctrine to be infallible?

which all other sources of doctrine should be measured and tested against.

Scripture says that it is the Church which Teaches the Wisdom of God. Why do you claim that the Church is not worthy of being obeyed, then?

Ephesians 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

If you trust Scripture, why do you seem to disagree with this verse?

2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[De_Maria]

catholicray:

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.

No, I don’t. The key word in this classic Anglican formulation is “necessary to salvation”.

Yes, you do.
You said that Scripture alone is the source of doctrine. I quote:

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

You said nothing about the only infallible source of doctrines necessary for salvation.

Then, if Sola Scriptura is a doctrine, Sola Scriptura requires that it must be found in Scripture.

All things necessary to salvation are stated in scripture.

No doubt. But they were first found in Sacred Tradition and continue to be found in Sacred Tradition. Not in Scripture alone.

Sola Scriptura is not stated in scripture.

If a doctrine is not stated in Scripture, then it is a man made doctrine.
If a doctrine is not stated in Scripture, then, according to Protestant teaching, it is not the Word of God.
If a doctrine is not stated in Scripture, then according to Protestant teaching, it is not inspired by God.

So, if a doctrine is not stated in Scripture, why should we believe it?

Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a belief necessary for salvation.

Thatis besides the point.

That’s a good thing for Catholics.

I see the irony. But it is misplaced. The joke is on you.

The fact is this doctrine could not possibly be practiced by the first Christians so are they saved or what?

In addition to the Old Testament, the first Christians had the gospel preached to them by Christ, his Apostles, and their close associates. They had the letters of Paul circulating relatively early, and as the canon was written book by book, the churches received them as the written word of God.

Do you not see that you just admitted that Scripture is not the sole source of infallible doctrine necessary for salvation? Because you did just say that the early Christians had all these other sources by which they could learn the saving Doctrines of Jesus Christ.

 

[ltwin]

Did the human author’s have any authority?

I suppose it depends on which authors we are talking about. The Apostles clearly had authority over the church.

If that is true,

1. Why doesn’t Scripture say that?
2. Why doesn’t Scripture mention the doctrine of sola Scriptura, at all?

If I recognize that Scripture is infallible, then it is already incumbent on me to treat it as an authority. If I am presented with another teaching that is claimed I must believe to be saved but it contradicts Scripture, then either Scripture is fallible or the other teaching is fallible.

If you believe that the Holy Spirit can inspire man to write infallible Scripture, why won’t you believe that the Holy Spirit can guide men to fashion infallible Traditions?

It’s not a question whether God could do it. I just am unconvinced that the Catholic Church is the repository of such an infallible tradition.

Can they be guided by the Holy Spirit? Or is the Holy Spirit done with inspiring men to do anything?

They can certainly be guided by the Holy Spirit, but God is not going to lead them into teaching that contradicts the revelation he has already given to the world. Therefore, that prior revelation becomes the standard by which newer teaching is judged.

But Scripture doesn’t mention that doctrine. So, why do you believe that doctrine to be infallible?

It’s not the doctrine I believe to be infallible. It is Scripture that I know is infallible. I have no way of knowing if anything else in this world is infallible, but I know Scripture is indeed the infallible word of God.

I don’t know if what Joe-shiny-shoe-salesman over there is preaching is the truth. So I look to Scripture for guidance. If his teaching aligns with Scripture, I can trust it. If it deviates from Scripture I know it is not to be trusted.

 

[ltwin]

Scripture says that it is the Church which Teaches the Wisdom of God. Why do you claim that the Church is not worthy of being obeyed, then?

Ephesians 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

This is not about the church’s teaching authority to men. This verse says that God is displaying his wisdom to angelic beings through the church. As they observe the church bringing together Jew and Gentile, breaking down the walls that divided humanity in Christ, the “rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms” are learning just how wise God is.

If you trust Scripture, why do you seem to disagree with this verse?

I don’t disagree with the verse. I disagree with your interpretation of it.

2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with this verse. The preceding verse specifically refers to Scripture, “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation”. This is emphasizing the source of Scripture—the Holy Spirit as the authors are “carried along” by him as they speak.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Did the human author’s have any authority?

I suppose it depends on which authors we are talking about. The Apostles clearly had authority over the church.

Who gave them that authority?

If that is true,

1. Why doesn’t Scripture say that?
2. Why doesn’t Scripture mention the doctrine of sola Scriptura, at all?

If I recognize that Scripture is infallible,

You’re ignoring my questions. Please answer my questions.

If I recognize that Scripture is infallible, then it is already incumbent on me to treat it as an authority.

We recognize that Scripture is infallible and that it is an authority. Scripture recognizes three infallible authorities. Tradition, Scripture and Church.

If I am presented with another teaching that is claimed I must believe to be saved but it contradicts Scripture, then either Scripture is fallible or the other teaching is fallible.

The teaching of Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture.

It’s not a question whether God could do it. I just am unconvinced that the Catholic Church is the repository of such an infallible tradition.

Ok. How about any of the Protestant gatherings?

They can certainly be guided by the Holy Spirit, but God is not going to lead them into teaching that contradicts the revelation he has already given to the world. Therefore, that prior revelation becomes the standard by which newer teaching is judged.

But you already believe doctrines that contradict God’s revelation. So, it can be proved that the people whom you follow are not guided by the Holy Spirit. Because their teachings contradict the Word of God.

It’s not the doctrine I believe to be infallible. It is Scripture that I know is infallible. I have no way of knowing if anything else in this world is infallible, but I know Scripture is indeed the infallible word of God.

If you don’t know if anything else is infallible, why do you deny that anything else is infallible? And why do you claim that Scripture says that if you have admitted that Scripture does not teach that doctrine?

I don’t know if what Joe-shiny-shoe-salesman over there is preaching is the truth. So I look to Scripture for guidance. If his teaching aligns with Scripture, I can trust it. If it deviates from Scripture I know it is not to be trusted.

Sola Scriptura deviates from Scripture. Yet you trust it. Why? By your own standard, you should reject that idea.

 

[De_Maria]

Ephesians 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

This is not about the church’s teaching authority to men.

Lol! Really? Have you not read Matt 28:18-20. That is clearly a mandate from Christ for the Church to Teach all men.

This verse says that God is displaying his wisdom to angelic beings through the church. As they observe the church bringing together Jew and Gentile, breaking down the walls that divided humanity in Christ, the “rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms” are learning just how wise God is.

This verse says that the Church is so important that when she gets through teaching the entire world, she will continue teaching even the heavenly powers in eternity.

Have you not also read in Scripture?

1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

I don’t disagree with the verse. I disagree with your interpretation of it.

Ok.

2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with this verse.

That Scripture says that the Holy Spirit inspired men to PREACH.

The preceding verse specifically refers to Scripture, “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation”. This is emphasizing the source of Scripture—the Holy Spirit as the authors are “carried along” by him as they speak.

In other words, Scripture comes from Tradition. Scripture comes from oral Teaching. The Holy Spirit first inspired men to SPEAK. Afterwards, to write down that which they were Teaching. But you deny one and accept the other. Do you not know that the Word of God does not fail?

Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

 

[catholicray]

I don’t disagree with the verse. I disagree with your interpretation of it.

By what authority do you disagree?
By what authority do you establish your interpretation to be free of error?
By the authority of the Holy Spirit?
Then why do you say Scripture Alone is infallible?
That which God ordains to be infallible is alone infallible.

Could anyone summarize that last statement in latin please lol.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I don’t know if what Joe-shiny-shoe-salesman over there is preaching is the truth. So I look to Scripture for guidance. If his teaching aligns with Scripture, I can trust it. If it deviates from Scripture I know it is not to be trusted.

Take for example the divinity of Christ. It isn’t specified in Scripture and we know that it was a contentious proposition because prior to Jesus, it was only pagans who had ascribed divinity to people and things and that was considered a very serious offence of idolatry.

The only reason that it was accepted in an enduring and absolute way was because people trusted the authority of the human leaders to establish that interpretation as correct. It had no precedent in the history of the people of God.

Do you acknowledge that process of establishing the doctrine of Christs divinity and the work of human leaders in that process?