The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

Can you define “Sola Scriptura”? Without a definition I think our conversation will be at least as muddy as all the monkey talk.

Right now I am just attempting to get you to define “Scriptura”. After we do that, we can get to the “sola” part.

 

[thomat65]

You have no idea that 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy is even “Scripture” to quote.

Yes I do. You have made an indefensible statement. You do not know the full extent of my knowledge. I’m not claiming omniscience, simply observing that you do not know what is in my head.

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

Are you sure? Why do you say that? Look, here’s why that statement doesn’t work:

The ONLY infallible way to know who “God” is, is to go OUTSIDE of God to submit to that authority.

See how absurd my version of your statement is? I’m not saying that scripture is God. But you’re presupposing that there must always be a higher authority, which isn’t necessarily true as is obvious in the case of God.

 

[catholicray]

The verses you are referring to only support the Sola…

If you interpret them that way.

As has been suggested before you share one verse or interpret one verse you have to somehow know that Scripture is actually Scripture and not just a human being writing whatever they felt like.

Logically you can not use Scripture in order to determine what Scripture is. Of course my point still remains concerning interpretation through the Holy Spirit.

 

[catholicray]

Keep in mind that these are the logical rules IF you maintain Sola Scriptura. You keep making the mistake that these rules logically apply without Sola Scriptura. They don’t. The logical problems are a product of the doctrine alone.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65. . . .

I’m not claiming omniscience, simply observing that you do not know what is in my head.

No. I am not claiming to know what is in your head
thomat65. (There you go changing my premises again.)

I’m claiming to know what CANNOT BE in your head UNLESS in PRINCIPLE, you use personal authority OUTSIDE of Scripture.

And historically, that’d be the Catholic Church.

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded.

That is WHERE the Canon comes from thomat65.

 

[Cathoholic]

For all others.

Here is thomat65 CHANGING my premise.
(Don’t let him sneak that curve ball by you.)

The ONLY infallible way to know who “God” is, is to go OUTSIDE of God to submit to that authority.

When I REALLY said . . .

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

(Here it is so you can see for yourself.

And here is thomat’s fallacy of equivocation.

That is where the definition of the premise gets changed to try to prop up a weak and unsupportable argument with a bogus one. And hope it fools you readers by not noticing it. Naturally now, you will notice it.)

 

[thomat65]

Here is thomat65 CHANGING my premise

Whoa, hold on a second. I did NOT say that you said “The ONLY infallible way to know who “God” is, is to go OUTSIDE of God to submit to that authority”.

See?

The ONLY infallible way to know who “God” is, is to go OUTSIDE of God to submit to that authority.

See how absurd my version of your statement is? I’m not saying that scripture is God. But you’re presupposing that there must always be a higher authority, which isn’t necessarily true as is obvious in the case of God.

Now, I did make an edit to clarify what I was saying. But that was before you posted this:

Here is thomat65 CHANGING my premise

The edit was made soon enough after I posted that I don’t even see one of those pencils indicating an edit. And it was certainly not an attempt to change your premise.

 

[Cathoholic]

Whoa, hold on a second. I did NOT say that you said “The ONLY infallible way to know who “God” is, is to go OUTSIDE of God to submit to that authority”.

You changed my premise thomat65.

And every reader can see you changed my premise.

I quoted it.

I re-posted it.

And I linked to it.

This is fallacious argumentation on your part.

And you are employing it to promote relativism at least in this sphere. I don’t think you are even aware of it. (I am not accusing you of malicious intent. Only you know that here. But I am accusing you factually of changing my premise. And you DID change my premise.)

 

[thomat65]

This is fallacious argumentation on your part.

It’s clear you’re either not satisfied or you’re misunderstanding something. Here, I’ll try it again:

You said:

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

I’m saying two things:

1. Why do you say that?
2. It is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

Here’s a proof by contradiction of #2:

1. A higher authority is always necessary to know something
2. God is knowable
3. There is no higher authority than God
4. Therefore, God is not knowable
5. #4 contradicts #2. Therefore, it is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

Now, given that a higher authority is not always necessary to know something, why do you say the following?

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

 

[Cathoholic]

I’m still trying to get you to say what Scripture is thomat65. The best I got was you asserting the Protestant Canon (here).

My personal belief about the canon is typical of Protestants.

Now I want to know WHY.

And whatever you appeal to . . . It is going to HAVE to be OUTSIDE if Scripture.

Because you and I BOTH KNOW, the Canon of Scripture, is nowhere to be found within Scripture.

 

[thomat65]

Now I want to know WHY.

May we take turns?

You recognize that I gave a direct answer to one of your questions. Since then you have made some assertions and I have challenged one of them. My challenge still stands, and I would like a direct answer:

1. Why do you say [the only way you can know scripture is…]?
2. It is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

Here’s a proof by contradiction of #2:

1. A higher authority is always necessary to know something
2. God is knowable
3. There is no higher authority than God
4. Therefore, God is not knowable
5. #4 contradicts #2. Therefore, it is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

Now, given that a higher authority is not always necessary to know something, why do you say the following?

Cathoholic:

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

 

[Cathoholic]

There is no “proof” there.

Your argumentation is mixed up on this point.

I stand by everything I have said here.

You have no idea what Scripture is . . . going by Scripture ALONE. Nor can you.

So for you to cite Scripture as authoritative, while not admitting an authoritative source outside Scripture, to tell you what Scripture is . . .

. . . Is a mere self-contradiction.

And I am not going to allow that to be put forth as a “foundation”. Especially while my premises are being changed.

I am just doing you a favor thomat65, and telling you, your whole argument depends on relativism or worse (but you if you can’t see the relativism, you are not going to see the possibility of “worse”).

 

[thomat65]

Anyone want to prove why the following statement might be correct?

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

Again, here’s a proof by contradiction that it is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something:

1. A higher authority is always necessary to know something
2. God is knowable
3. There is no higher authority than God
4. Therefore, God is not knowable
5. #4 contradicts #2. Therefore, it is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

@Cathoholic please hear me out on this with fresh ears. You say:

So for you to cite Scripture as authoritative, while not admitting an authoritative source outside Scripture, to tell you what Scripture is . . .

. . . Is a mere self-contradiction.

This is another form of what you asserted earlier when you said:

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

I am not convinced that this is a correct statement. Please, if you’re truly trying to help me, then help me by proving this statement.

 

[Cathoholic]

@Cathoholic please hear me out on this with fresh ears. You say:

No.

Your syllogism is wrong.

I am not going to engage you in relativism.

You still need to support your sola Scriptura. That is what the thread is about.

And without a definition of “scriptura”, you will not be able to defend “sola Scriptura”.

And as soon as you give me one (you know where I am going with this so you do not want to answer), I will ask you if it is authoritative.

And if you say “no”, I will ask WHY appeal to Scripture as authoritative then.

And if you say “yes”, I will point out your violation of the law of non-contradiction and highlight your relativism.

 

[thomat65]

@Cathoholic Here’s how I remember our conversation going.

First, this thread was twelve days old, nearly dead and locked after the thread had turned from what the OP said to a conversation about authority in interpretation and monkeys.

Then, 17 hours ago you posted this:

If you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura,
you OUGHT to have THAT verse in the Bible SOMEWHERE.

I knew that it would be impossible to talk about this without a definition of “Sola Scriptura”, so I asked for one:

Can you define “Sola Scriptura”? Without a definition I think our conversation will be at least as muddy as all the monkey talk.

You did not give a definition. Someone else did:

Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone but it is defined as Scripture being the “only infallible” authority of the Christian faith.

Now armed with that definition, I issued my first challenge for something you said in your post 17 hours ago:

So now can either of you explain why the following statement is true? Or would @catholicray prefer not to be held to @Cathoholic’s statement?

Cathoholic:

If you are going to hold to [Scripture being the “only infallible” authority of the Christian faith],
you OUGHT to have THAT verse in the Bible SOMEWHERE.

You did not answer. Someone else did, but with something that is slightly different:

If you are holding to Sola Scriptura then you should be able to find a verse in Scripture that supports it.

I pointed out that this isn’t addressing my challenge:

Ah, but that is a different statement than…

You latched onto something I said there, and instead of addressing my first challenge you made more assertions. Like this one:

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

And instead of taking the opportunity to provide your own definition of “Sola Scriptura”, you attempted to shift the focus elsewhere:

thomat65 . . .

Can you define “Sola Scriptura”? Without a definition I think our conversation will be at least as muddy as all the monkey talk.

 

[thomat65]

[cont]
I provided a rote rebuttal of one of your assertions.

You have no idea that 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy is even “Scripture” to quote.

Then, recognizing that another of your assertions was closer to the core of your reasoning, I zeroed in on it, totally dropping my first challenge which you left unanswered:

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

I confusingly restated your assertion in order to issue my second challenge:

The ONLY infallible way to know who “God” is, is to go OUTSIDE of God to submit to that authority.

See how absurd my version of your statement is?

You misunderstood what I was saying. I do not fault you for this. I should have been more clear:

For all others.

Here is thomat65 CHANGING my premise.

I tried to clear that up, and produced the first copy of my second challenge. Remember that my first still was not answered, and I have only been responding to what you’re asserting!

Whoa, hold on a second. I did NOT say…

Here, I’ll try it again:

I’m saying two things:

1. Why do you say that?
2. It is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

Here’s a proof by contradiction of #2:

1. A higher authority is always necessary to know something
2. God is knowable
3. There is no higher authority than God
4. Therefore, God is not knowable
5. #4 contradicts #2. Therefore, it is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

Now, given that a higher authority is not always necessary to know something, why do you say the following?

Cathoholic:

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

And there was formalized my second challenge, replacing the first because you never answered it, and formed in response to what you asserted. It’s not like I’m trying to derail things–I’m merely pressing back on select few of your many assertions. And I pressed back using logic.

From there, the train went careening off the rails. We didn’t get anywhere. You accused me of various things, restated things, and made more assertions while I tried to keep focusing back on my challenge to an assertion that you made. I even made an emotional appeal to no effect.

I expect you to back up your assertions.

If the only way to get you to engage in good dialogue is to continue answering your questions while my challenges to your assertions go unanswered, then I’ll do it just this once.

Scripture is the written word of God. ← that’s the definition. It’s my belief that the Protestant Canon is the correct one.

Now it’s your turn to engage my challenge.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

And instead of taking the opportunity to provide your own definition of “Sola Scriptura”, you attempted to shift the focus elsewhere . . .

Actually that is a partial truth.

And it is evident that it is a partial truth from your own post of me saying . . . .

Right now I am just attempting to get you to define “Scriptura”. After we do that, we can get to the “sola” part.

And I am still waiting thomat65.

I am waiting for you to tell me what Scripture is.

 

[catholicray]

I pointed out that this isn’t addressing my challenge:

Hit the brakes! I’ve answered your challenge perfectly you just don’t understand that I did.

Remember Sola Scriptura means that all proclaimed doctrine is tested by Scripture because Scripture is the final authority. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that must be tested by Scripture alone.

Cathoholic is merely sharing that the canon of Scripture is a form of doctrine which (ONLY IF YOU ARE MAINTAINING SOLA SCRIPTURA) must be tested by Scripture.

Stepping outside of Scripture to know Scripture violates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Yet you must step outside of Scripture to determine it is Scripture otherwise I would ask you why you do not consider other writings Scripture? If all you have is writings telling you they are Scripture then I have a few more writings for you to add to your canon.

Thus you must step outside of Scripture and violate the logic of Sola Scriptura or add more books to your canon. Your choice.

 

[thomat65]

the canon of Scripture is a form of doctrine which (ONLY IF YOU ARE MAINTAINING SOLA SCRIPTURA) must be tested by Scripture.

I don’t believe the table of contents must be tested by scripture.

I admit that leaves me in a seemingly-difficult position: having a fallible canon of infallible books. But this is a possibility of error, not a probability of error. And the Magisterium does not lift one from the possibility of error: Catholics also fallibly believe they have something infallible. So point your finger and jeer if you like, but remember that you’re also fallible like me.

There’s a second reason why the Magisterium is no help here. Let’s suppose that the Magisterium is the final authority on all doctrines. Now, the identity of the Magisterium is a doctrine. Then following the form of your argument you must test the identity of the Magisterium by the Magisterium, or risk the sticky situation of either stepping outside the Magisterium, violating the Magisterium, or adding additional authorities.

Do you see why that form of argument isn’t useful?

Let me again emphasize this proof by contradiction that a higher authority isn’t always necessary:

1. A higher authority is always necessary to know something
2. God is knowable
3. There is no higher authority than God
4. Therefore, God is not knowable
5. #4 contradicts #2. Therefore, it is not the case that a higher authority is always necessary to know something

 

[catholicray]

And the Magisterium does not lift one from the possibility of error: Catholics also fallibly believe they have something infallible. So point your finger and jeer if you like, but remember that you’re also fallible like me.

There’s a second reason why the Magisterium is no help here. Let’s suppose that the Magisterium is the final authority on all doctrines. Now, the identity of the Magisterium

Sorry but that argument is flawed. The definition of the infallible magisterium is that part of the Catholic Church guaranteed to be led by the Holy Spirit when exercising proclamation of doctrine. Thus when we look at the depths of Catholic teaching we find God leading the Church. I have no need to find higher authority than God.

So yes as a fallible man I fallibly place my trust in God.

Sola Scriptura is not the same. It requires you to fallibly trust in fallible interpretations.

Thus:
Catholics fallibly trust in infallibility and Sola Scriptura fallibly trusts in fallibility.

We can indeed both be wrong but logically there is a better defense for why one trusts in infallibility rather than fallibility.

There are problems with each path but Sola Scriptura ends in trusting in men logically. Catholicism ends in trusting in God. This doesn’t tell you Catholicism is right except to say that one of these paths are contrary to scripture.

You can not interpret Scripture infallibly and no Protestant leader claims to be able to either. The Catholic Church makes the claim that by the power of the Holy Spirit it can interpret Scripture infallibly. That statement alone is not contrary to Scripture and yet not a single Protestant pastor dares to say such a thing. Why? Because Sola Scriptura dictates logically that the Holy Spirit can not work through fallible men to infallibly interpret the word of God. No he can only work through fallible men to write infallible Scripture. His work was done long ago and His power today is reduced to an emotion via Sola Scriptura. That is the contradiction this post addresses.