The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[catholicray]

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

This is also flawed let me show you:

1. The Highest authority is always necessary to know something
2. God is knowable
3. There is no higher authority than God
4. Therefore by the authority of God one can know anything.

I realize this can be tightened a lot but it merely highlights that one does not need to use your philosophy to have a Catholic understanding.

Your first premise is utterly flawed. It’s the same mistake atheists make when they think theologians are saying that everything that is caused must be caused therefore they ask what caused God.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

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

What should it be “tested” by?

Because by your statement, you are essentially saying YOUR OPINION is absolutely true. (Or you are back to asserting relativism).

Restated . . .

You are essentially claiming YOU are “inspired” thomat65.
(Although I understand, you wouldn’t put it that way. I get that.)

.

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.

If you think that, you do not have an accurate understanding of Catholic teaching on what infallibility is and is not.

.

And for the last time, your “proof” does not help you. It is marred by misunderstandings.

 

[Mi_Rose]

Two simple questions. Who determined what is scripture? How did they do that?

 

[thomat65]

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

This is unfair. It’s as though you’re saying “Sola Scriptura is fallible turtles all the way down” which is not true. Remember, infallible scripture is in there somewhere for the Sola Scripturians! It’s fallible belief in infallibility. If you think this is ugly then that’s not my problem, and you’re forgetting that Catholicism is no prettier.

The Catholic Church makes the claim that by the power of the Holy Spirit it can interpret Scripture infallibly.

Great. The RCC has made some assertions.

That statement alone is not contrary to Scripture

Are you sure? Prove it. Warning: this is a trap.

Sorry but that argument is flawed. […] I have no need to find higher authority than God.

Good! Now explain to me how the argument is valid when you substitute “Sola Scriptura” and “Scripture”?

This is also flawed let me show you:

1. The Highest authority is always necessary to know something
2. God is knowable
3. There is no higher authority than God
4. Therefore by the authority of God one can know anything.

That does not prove that my proof by contradiction is flawed. You’ve constructed something different that speaks past it. Let’s suppose that “by the authority of God one can know anything” (I’m not denying it, just saying let’s run with it). That merely means that things can be known by the higher authority, not that the higher authority is necessary for knowing. See? This is does not falsify my proof.

Your first premise is utterly flawed.

Taken a different way than you meant this, I totally agree with you: literally, the first premise is utterly flawed… that’s the point of the proof.

Taken the way you mean it, I did not make the mistake of saying that there is always a higher authority. Instead, I proved that the statement “a higher authority is not always necessary to know something” is true.

Two simple questions. Who determined what is scripture? How did they do that?

God determined it. He did that by causing his words to be written.

 

[thomat65]

What should it be “tested” by?

It’s difficult for me to maintain so many threads of thought at once. So for my own sake here’s the fuller context of my statement:

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

(The nested quote is from @catholicray)

It is not necessary to test the table of contents by scripture if the table of contents may tested by something else. So if I correctly answer the question “what, other than scripture, may the table of contents be tested by?” then I’ll have shown that “it’s not true that the table of contents must be tested by scripture”. That question is the correct one if you want to test my statement.

But that’s a different question than what you’ve asked. You said “what should it be tested by”, not “what may it be tested by”. You imply obligation–you’re implying that the table of contents ought to be tested by something. That’s an assertion. To really be thorough I could ask you to back up your assertion that the table of contents ought to be tested by anything. Perhaps this is trivial to prove, perhaps not. But you have implied this. So… are you willing to show that the table of contents requires testing by anything?

Now you might be getting frustrated because that’s not the whole story. You see, when I said “I don’t believe it must be tested” then I asserted belief in a lack of something. That’s an assertion that I made. So why am I not turning the screws on my own thumbs?

But wait, there’s more. I was challenging something that @catholicray asserted–“the canon must be tested by scripture”.

So here’s where we stand: @catholicray asserted something. I asserted the opposite. You (@Cathoholic) asserted the something again.

So what’s the next move? Is it my turn now to restate the opposite assertion again, since the number of opposite assertions is now lacking? Or should I attempt to back up my opposite assertion while letting you guys sneak by? Or should you guys do the hard work while I sit back?

I guess I’ll try my hand at answering “what, other than scripture, may the table of contents be tested by?” Here goes!

God is able to test the table of contents. God is not scripture. Therefore, it is not true that the table of contents must be tested by scripture.

Now I doubt anyone is going to be satisfied by this answer. But regardless of your feelings, there it is, without cheating. Now it’s your turn.

Regardless, here’s one for ya’. Feel free to pick this apart, but to me this sounds like a pretty good answer for “what’s the best way for us to judge the correctness of the canon”: The New Testament Canon | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

 

[thomat65]

[cont]
Let me try and save some time. Is the following what you’re trying to say?

1. One can only have zero certainty that something is scripture unless it’s in an authoritative table of contents
2. One may have 100% certainty that something is scripture if it’s in an authoritative table of contents
3. Something is not authoritative if there’s any possibility that it’s wrong
4. Something is authoritative if there is zero possibility that it’s wrong
5. The Roman Catholic Church has infallibly produced a table of contents
6. Therefore, the table of contents produced by the RCC is authoritative
7. Therefore, one may have 100% certainty that everything in the RCC table of contents is scripture
8. Protestants have fallibly produced a table of contents
9. Therefore, the table of contents produced by Protestants is not authoritative
10. Therefore, one may only have zero certainty that anything in the Protestant table of contents is scripture

#1 is false. The Church appears to have had increasing levels of confidence in the canonicity of Jude over time, for example. There did exist a time in which it was in no authoritative table of contents, yet simultaneously people’s confidence was non-zero.

I don’t see a problem with #2.

#3 is false. All the time we treat authorities as binding even when there’s a possibility they don’t actually exist.

I don’t see a problem with #4.

#5 is of course the subject of much debate. Personally, I’m convinced there are internal inconsistencies in Roman Catholicism which lead me to believe that its claims are not always true. And being so convinced I see no reason to suppose that the product of that system is infallible. And of course this is a whole bucket of worms.

#6 is no more true than #5.

#7 is no more true than #6.

#8 is true.

#9 is false (the statement as a whole is false, meaning it’s not necessarily true that the Protestant table of contents is not authoritative).

#10 is false.

Let’s go back to this:

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

Is the following why you said this? Warning: this is a trap.

1. The table of contents can be known infallibly
2. Something cannot be self-validating
3. Therefore, the table of contents cannot be contained within scripture

 

[catholicray]

You’re missing the argument entirely because you are assessing the argument out of order.

1 - Sola Scriptura defines Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith.

2 - Sola Scriptura logically dictates that all doctrine or tradition must be tested by Scripture

3 - The canon of Scripture is doctrine or tradition, however you care to look at it.

4 - Thus Sola Scriptura logically dictates that the canon of Scripture must be tested by Scripture.

5 - 4 is invalid logically. Sola Scriptura creates a illogical loop concerning the canon of Scripture.

a. you must test the canon of Scripture by Scripture.

b. you must know what Scripture is in order to test it.

c. You can only know that a book is Scripture if Scripture confirms that it is Scripture otherwise it is not tested by your only infallible rule of faith.

d. In order to know that a book is Scripture you must test it by Scripture but you can not test a single book against other books of Scripture that have not yet been tested.

1. Therefore the doctrine of Sola Scriptura logically refutes its own Scriptura.

What you suggest for answers does not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They are decent answers but you must reject Sola Scriptura in order to give them. As I have said repeatedly, you can not MAINTAIN the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and come to the knowledge of Scripture logically. It is logically impossible. I’m not refuting your answers I am refuting Sola Scriptura.

 

[catholicray]

You may want to quote Scripture in order to attack my above argument. Let’s see how that works.

Suppose you quote scripture where God says he will preserve His word. The question remains how do you know that those are God’s words.

If you MAINTAIN Sola Scriptura you should throw in the towel. Why?

Because in order to know that the particular book you are quoting from is Scripture… Scripture must give some sort of validation that the book in question is indeed Scripture. The problem is you cannot assume the other books of Scripture are indeed Scripture without testing them as well. Logically then the book you are quoting from must validate itself.

Example:

Suppose I write two books today and in one of them I write that I Peter am writing to you about doctrine and tradition and how this book is the truth. I also write that what Paul says is Scripture. Then I write a second book where I write that I Paul am sent by God to deliver the truth. I write my own make believe doctrines and traditions and also write that what Peter writes is Scripture.

You would never believe that those two books are Scripture simply because they say they are. Likewise the same problem arises when maintaining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and trying to determine what the canon of Scripture is. It is useless to quote from an unverified book in order to verify another. This means Sola Scriptura logically refutes its own canon. At one point you were right. Your canon is fallible. You possess a fallible canon which is infallible. That is the contradiction that is where Sola Scriptura fails.

 

[Cathoholic]

I’m not asking @catholicray. I’m asking YOU.

What do you think the table of contents of Scripture should be tested by?

You said you don’t believe . . . .

the table of contents must be tested by scripture.

OK.

Now what?

How do you know the Canon is reliable?

How do YOU (not somebody else) measure the Canon of Scripture?

(This seems like a very easy question. You have been talking a LOT about “Scripture” on this thread thomat65. You MUST have thought about WHAT IS Scripture?)

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

From your “trap” . . .

Something cannot be self-validating

But I’ve never CLAIMED Scripture is self-validating. (You seem to assume it, but you will not say it. At least in the questions I have been asking you.)

But I am still wondering what YOU THINK Scripture is?

 

[catholicray]

One more thing to consider. How do I verify that Scripture is Scripture? When I approach Scripture as a historical document and study the historical data concerning Jesus I find it reasonable to believe that He existed and that he rose from the dead.

By this I trust that Jesus is the highest authority I am aware of. I then read that Jesus founded a Church. The Church then is authorized by the highest authority. When the Church defines the canon of Scripture I trust in that canon because it is defined by the institution that is authorized by my highest authority.

Can the same method be used while maintaining Sola Scriptura? No!

Why? Because the highest authority is Scripture. This is an inadvertent consequence of Sola Scriptura.

Example

The first book of the New Testament canon was written 15 years after the ascension of Christ. If the first Christians were practicing Sola Scriptura their Scriptura would have been the Old Testament. If they were logically maintaining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when Paul wrote scripture 15 years later they would have to find a passage in the Old Testament that supported Paul’s writings as Scripture.

The Old Testament is clear that one can not add to the word of God. Sola Scriptura would logically undermine Paul’s letter as being Scripture. The only way to “add” to God’s word is if God himself adds to it. Only God has the authority to authorize the production of sacred scripture. Jesus is the necessary authority.

One must step outside of Scripture and trust in an authority other than Scripture in order to accept the New Testament at all. So it is impossible that Sola Scriptura is what the first Christians practiced. The first Christians put their trust in Jesus, the Apostles, and the Church.

 

[rightness]

That’s basically it. The final Bible compilation wasn’t made until various 3rd century councils. The Bible is made infallible through Tradition, not because Jesus sent down a book from heaven.

What I like to use against Sola Scriptura is basically in the Bible itself, in John 20:30-31 where John says there has been much that has been unwritten. Basically, this means that the authors discerned what parts of Jesus’s life to write about, and not Jesus Himself, but it is Jesus working through the authors. That implies that the Holy Spirit works through the Church to create the Bible, and it is the Holy Spirit that maintains the Tradition alive until it could be compiled into a compiled book.

The protestant position is simply untenable simply by the historical facts of when the Bible was and how it was created.

It’s not like Jesus randomly spoke during the Last Supper saying “Hey Matthew, I can tell in the future that you’re gonna write a book about my life, so make sure that you write “Jesus condemns condoms” because Christians in 2000 years will need that direction.” Obviously, Jesus knew what was to come, and He left us a church to aid us in these modern issues.

 

[thomat65]

I am refuting Sola Scriptura

Thank you for the orderly refutation that you outlined above this I’ve quoted. I appreciate how clear it is, and how it works on the target’s own terms to make it self-defeating.

I am feeling the weight of it.

But I don’t think it would be wise for me to toss out “Sola Scriptura” just yet. A couple of reasons why I say this:

• This can’t be the first time since the Reformation that this refutation has been made. So while I can’t think of a rebuttal at the moment, perhaps someone else already has. This calls for more research.
• I wonder if this is related to why Protestants often give more nuanced definitions of “Sola Scriptura”. For example, one person says “Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures […] are the final authority in all that they address.” Another person says “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.” So perhaps your refutation is slightly off target.

So I’ll concede your point for now. Feel free to pick at the above two bullet points.

What do you think the table of contents of Scripture should be tested by?

You may have missed this toward the end:

to me this sounds like a pretty good answer for “what’s the best way for us to judge the correctness of the canon”:

Something cannot be self-validating

Right. By listing those three points I was giving you an opportunity to either say “yes, those three points fairly represent what I’m saying” or “no, this is what I mean …” You never claimed scripture is self-validating which is why I wrote “Something cannot be self-validating” as the second point in the set of three points that was my attempt to summarize your view.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 (on the Canon of Scripture and where it comes from) . . .

that was my attempt to summarize your view.

Well now that you sumnarized MY view,
I’d like you to summarize YOUR view.

What is Scripture, and where do we get the Canon or “table of contents” from?

 

[catholicray]

It’s not the first time but some people are either infallibly ignorant or they have an agenda. I’ve personally witnessed the former with multiple people who talk themselves in a circle after hearing the same argument. Some people can understand the logic others can not.

 

[thomat65]

(This post was supposed to follow directly on the heels of my previous one, but that one got stuck in the queue for a few hours)

How do I verify that Scripture is Scripture? [Series of steps]

I also start with what Christ said, which I am highly confident is true, and build out from there.

I think it’s interesting just how similar our approaches appear to be:

1. High confidence in what Christ said
2. High confidence that some writings (they’re scriptures, I know, but that’s now a loaded term here) are his words
3. Find some assertion in those writings
4. Believe that assertion

Now I’m going to go off topic for a minute (Edit: looking at this again maybe this isn’t so off topic. Either way…) Feel free to follow me, or feel free to ignore this. I’m fine either way.

You said that you have found one particular assertion (“Jesus founded a Church and authorized it to do certain things”), and the reason you believe a particular product of the RCC (“the canon of Scripture”) is ultimately because you derived trust from at least one scripture (“I read [in the scriptures] that Jesus founded the RCC and authorized it to produce the canon”). Ultimately, it’s trust derived from Christ, yes, but the intermediate step which is logically prior to your acceptance of the RCC is your derived trust in the scriptures.

I think you’ve sprung the trap I set for you up above:

Warning: this is a trap.

Here’s the trap: by demonstrating that you trust the RCC because you trust the scriptures first, you are showing that you believe the actions and products of the RCC may be judged by a personal interpretation of scripture. You judged them to be correct and worth submitting to, but it’s a judgement nonetheless.

Therein I find some difficulties:

• I have high confidence that some personal interpretations of scripture align very closely with what the original authors intended. These contradict clear teachings of the RCC.
• I have high confidence that at least some passages of scripture which are used to demonstrate the authority of the RCC have not been correctly interpreted. I have high confidence that the original authors had a contrary meaning.
• Perhaps most importantly, I have high confidence that the scriptures detail an entirely different method of salvation than the one offered by the RCC. Specifically, I’m convinced that it is merely by trusting in Christ that a grand double imputation happens and one is permanently joined to Christ and adopted into God’s family, and if that has happened then works, which contributed in no way to the permanent affixing to Christ, will necessarily follow.

Now, back to this thread…

 

[thomat65]

The Bible is made infallible through Tradition, not because Jesus sent down a book from heaven.

I’m a little confused by your use of the word “Bible”. Are you saying that the words of scripture themselves were made infallible through Tradition, as though they were fallible for some period of time before Tradition conferred infallibility? Or are you saying the RCC table of contents, from the moment it was first fashioned, was infallible through Tradition?

it is the Holy Spirit that maintains the Tradition alive until it could be compiled into a compiled book.

I think you could more directly make this point with John 14:26 “the Holy Spirit will bring to your remembrance”, meaning memories of things would exist in their heads until the Holy Spirit later brings those memories to the fore.

But I don’t understand how this is a refutation of Sola Scriptura. Unless it’s because:

Christians in 2000 years will need that direction

In that case I’m beginning to suspect more and more that’s why some Protestants qualify the definition of Sola Scriptura with “things necessary for salvation”.

 

[thomat65]

Well now that you sumnarized MY view,
I’d like you to summarize YOUR view.

I hesitate responding because I don’t want to continue the risk of irritating you. So I’ll try to step gingerly.

In what you wrote (quoted just above) you acknowledge that I summarized your view with these three points:

Is the following why you said this? Warning: this is a trap.

1. The table of contents can be known infallibly
2. Something cannot be self-validating
3. Therefore, the table of contents cannot be contained within scripture

Since you say that correctly represents your view, now I get to spring the “trap” on you:

#1 is false. None of us possess infallible knowledge (aside from “infallible” conditional knowledge such as knowing that the blue triangle has three sides if triangles of all color have three sides).

#2 is sometimes false. God is something, yet what other than God may validate him? Therefore it’s not always true that something cannot be self-validating. I know, this feels very unrelated to a discussion about scripture.

Therefore, #3 does not necessarily follow–if it’s true, it’s not because of #1 and #2.

Now, if it’s indeed true that I represented your view as your words taken most literally said I did, then your view is flawed. Otherwise, please be more clear.

Either way, let me connect #2 a little more closely to scripture. If #2 is true then scripture cannot be self-validating. Now, as a whole this might be true–it seems reasonable to expect some kind of confidence “entry point” into scripture, something you can be highly confident in which implies confidence in scripture. Otherwise it smells like circular reasoning.

But between the different books of the bible this is not true. It’s not true because some parts of scripture do validate other parts of scripture. Check out how Peter directly calls Paul’s writings scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Also see how Christ indirectly calls the whole Jewish Old Testament scripture in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51–supposedly the Jews arranged their Old Testaments differently with Genesis (Abel was first martyr) in the beginning and Chronicles (Zechariah is last martyr in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22) last.

I think a consequence of this is that one is able to begin with a certain degree of confidence (through whatever means are satisfactory to the individual) that at least Christ’s words as recorded in one book are scripture, and then translate that confidence into other scriptures through that book’s connections into those scriptures.

I suspect there are other ways to instill confidence in a book’s canonicity.

I’m still forming my view, but I think it’s going to end up looking similar to this. And here I’ll remind you that I wrote favorably about a particular resource which you can read for yourself:

to me this sounds like a pretty good answer for “what’s the best way for us to judge the correctness of the canon”: The New Testament Canon | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

I hesitate responding because I don’t want to continue the risk of irritating you. So I’ll try to step gingerly.

Hey look. I apologize for coming off as “irritated”.

Just the way I communicate sometimes and not a function of you OK?

But I really want to have the discussion.

Let’s just get past it and tell me.

After all. I have been asking I think, for over a week now.

 

[thomat65]

I have been asking I think, for over a week now.

I can tell you believe your questions have not been answered. Here is one of the most recent questions you’ve asked me which is over a week old:

thomat65. What do you think “The Scriptures” are?

This was answered here:

My personal belief about the canon is typical of Protestants.

And here’s your other most recent question which meets the qualifications of being over a week old:

HOW do you know what “Scripture” is (without any authority)?

I believe this was answered (to the best of my current ability) in my previous post.

Please let me know if these things don’t do the trick.

Honestly I forgot that you had even asked those two questions because they were so old (in forum thread time… this thread was just shy of being locked) and it felt like conversations had kind of wrapped up. But you saying “over a week” made me go “what is he talking about? … Ohhh…”