The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[catholicray]

I do not deny that Christ is in close communion with his church. But metaphors have their limitations. To make this clear: a head will die without its body, so how are you to keep from saying that Christ will die without the Church?

Good point. Of course Christ himself can not die in some mortal fashion but even so if you remove the Church from this world then the truth of Christ effectively dies. No ears will hear for no mouths will there be to tell it.

As for the submission of the Church to Christ I could write a book on the subject. The term submission confuses in my opinion but it is never the less useful. How does one submit to Christ in a way that fulfills the call of our Lord? Does he submit as a servant to a master? No, if that were the case God wouldn’t have created us with free will? He could have created us as merely servants to his will with no options to disobey. The submission here is one of a lover, that sort of submission that is freely given rather than coerced. This is clarified in the greater context of what Paul says thereafter.

Romans 5:25-33 ~ RSVCE

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

Again those deeper meanings found in the bosom of the Catholic Church.

 

[catholicray]

So you don’t like that Hebrews 6:13-18 is in your Bible? Look, God’s word is binding on himself. Otherwise God would be a liar. But he isn’t: he’s constrained to keep to his truth that he laid out in scripture.

No I dislike the nonsense that supposes that God is submissive to his own Word rather than in complete communion with it for eternity. God is God and His Word is God. If the relationship is one of submission then God is inferior to his own Word. If the relationship is pure communion then God is in love with His own Word. I choose the latter it simply makes more sense in the bigger picture. It’s simple, you assume submission, I assume sacrifice and love equals an immutable communion.

1 Timothy was written to give instruction to Timothy on how the household of God was to behave. I am not wrong about this. 1 Timothy 4:6, 11, 5:7, etc. 1 Timothy is binding on the household of God.

No you were wrong the first time and you remain wrong. That verse is binding on members of the household of God and it clearly talks about how members ought to behave in the household of God. No where does it attempt to give instruction as to how the household of God ought to behave within the midst of its’ members.

Ahh, but you do need an infallible interpretation of an infallible interpretation of (repeat endlessly) because “what an individual understands is fallible”. It’s not true that after an infallible interpretation is arrived at there is only room for clarification rather than interpretation because clarification is interpretation! And how is one to know if the clarification does or doesn’t override or is at logical odds with that which is infallibly defined if not through fallible personal interpretation?

You only need an infallible interpretation endlessly is you are attempting to remove the fallibility of the receiver. In this case as I stated before the individual does not become infallible. The individual is equipped for salvation but this does not render that individual infallible. Salvation is rather a simple thing really. We tend to make it far more complex than it really is.

 

[catholicray]

You do? Do you know this infallibly?

Do you infallibly know that it is not?

All you need to do is look on Christ and believe in him and he will give you eternal life and raise you up on the last day. It’s that simple. It really is faith alone which unites one to Christ.

Well that’s good news I suppose since I have faith in Christ. Do you suppose my works will destroy my faith? Perhaps on the salvation scale my belief in works will nullify my faith in Christ and it will no longer be possible for me to be saved? Do you believe such a thing?

Oh and lastly…
How does any of this support Sola Scriptura?

 

[Zaccheus]

Just play the telephone game (maybe called something different where you are from) and you will see how a story can change!

The point of the telephone game is to have fun with the way the message changes. But:

The early Christians would have been trying very hard not to allow changes or errors to creep in.

They could check their own accuracy with each other.

If one person or group started to teach error others would rush to correct them.

Unlike the telephone game, the teachings were done publicly-- shouted from the rooftops to an audience rather than whispered from player to player.

 

[thomat65]

A reply so you can continue.

Thanks.

Show us from the Bible, Thom. Quit dancing around the issue.

You may have missed where I already have (no worries, this is a long thread):

1 Timothy 3:15 is in your scripture. And it says that the Church ought to conduct itself in accord with Paul’s letter. And Paul’s letter is in your scripture.

Therefore submission of the Church to scripture is established by the speech of the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 3:14-15 (taken in context) demonstrates that the written word of God is binding on the Church. There is nothing the Church can rightly do that contradicts anything in 1 Timothy. Therefore, the Church and all her Tradition is subservient to scripture.

Because there’s no need to “invent another infallible authority”. The Catholic Church is a living authority, so if something is unclear, just ask for clarification. It may be slow in coming, but it will come. Your argument here does not compute.

Let me make my point clear: if something is unclear to me in scripture, then I just look for more clarifications in other scriptures. I let the more clear passages guide me through the less clear ones. Infallible external interpretations are not necessary to understand the essential parts of scripture because the essentials (including what is necessary for salvation) are satisfyingly clear.

So I find the Magisterium to be merely educational for when I want to learn what the RCC believes, not necessary in the slightest.

My argument should now be computing. Doubtless you’ll want to say that the Magisterium is necessary, because otherwise you fear getting only endless and wildly different fallible interpretations.

Okay. So if the Magisterium is necessary for gaining infallible knowledge, then so is infallible interpretation of the Magisterium’s claims, and infallible interpretations of those interpretations, and so on forever. Because otherwise you’ll never really know if you’ve gotten the infallible meaning. You could be doing something wrong and might lose your salvation! You have to go on obtaining clarifying interpretations forever and you’ll never arrive at the truth!

The only alternative, if the Magisterium is necessary, is to claim personal infallibility. But ironically if one is personally infallible then the Magisterium is not necessary, because you would just infallibly interpret the Scriptures and Tradition yourself.

The Magisterium does not lift one from fallibility.

Do you claim personal infallibility? Or do you admit that you could be wrong about your interpretation of the Bible?

I can be wrong about all of my interpretations of the Bible. But I’m satisfied with them just the same because:

1. Important contradictory interpretations (such as what the RCC puts forth about salvation) contradict some really clear things in scripture
2. I don’t pretend to need knowledge infallibly. Things are clear enough to settle me

 

[thomat65]

Notice that Jesus doesn’t say, “pass on Scripture alone”

I didn’t say he did, because you didn’t say “Jesus never said to pass on Scripture alone” but you said:

He never commanded anyone to pass on Scripture.

I tore down your counter argument in the quickest fashion I could find. What you actually wrote (maybe not what you meant) was false as demonstrated by Revelation 1:1-3. Jesus sent the Revelation willing for it to be shown, read, and heard by his servants. How can it be read without being written? How can anyone “keep those things which are written therein” without the scripture being written?

Your points about the written words being read have no bearing. Your counter argument is toast in its current form. I’m not taunting you, but I think it would be entirely appropriate for you to say “yes you’re right in refuting that counter argument as written, but what I really meant was …” and formulate a different counter argument.

But to beat you to the punch I’ll establish my point further (because that’s good debate strategy… now you’ll have to knock down two arguments instead of just one): in Revelation 1:3 and 22:7 Jesus blesses those who keep (obey) the written words. What do you think he does to those who disobey the written words? Therefore the written words are binding upon the church and have authority over her.

Be careful. “Judge not…”

You are correct that I ought not to be condemning, and that I do not know that @catholicray has not found salvation. And I, too, have been touched by many Catholics’ hearts.

@catholicray please forgive me for being condemning.

some of your response really veers off topic and attempts to get into the discussion of faith and works. I have no problem discussing that here but it seems this is always the run away tactic

You’re correct that I have gone far off topic at times, while at other times contradicting myself by refusing to venture off topic with others. I’ll try to keep things more focused.

But if I can salvage some of my reputation: I wasn’t exercising run away tactics. Instead, at certain points I simply had not had time to address people’s responses, and fearing the time would not come I tried to toss in the thing where I believe this is headed: how unjust people can be made right in the judgment of a holy God. In my mind that’s really the source of all the fervor in the battle for or against Sola Scriptura. I’d rather be accused of having unfocused and ineffective zeal on a time crunch than of running away

 

[thomat65]

the word believe in Scripture does not mean the same thing as when we think of believing in Santa Clause

I agree.

Well which is it? Are we to believe or are we to obey?

It seems that John 3:36, in harmony with Paul’s, Peter’s, James’, and others’ writings, is saying that true belief is inseparable from obedience. There is no such thing as “believing in the Son” (in the sense of John 3:36) that does not play out as obeying the Son. And one cannot obey the Son without first believing in him. To paraphrase James 2:18, “c’mon, just try to show me your faith without using works to do so.”

Does obedience lead to works? I think so and I could sustain that position in Scripture.

I agree.

Thus works that are the product of obedience to Christ are those works which contribute to our salvation.

I disagree in one sense and agree in another. I think “salvation” needs to be defined because it’s used in several ways in scripture (to say nothing of the way I sloppily used it). If you mean “works contribute to our being sanctified” then I agree, that can be proven in scripture. If you mean “a declaration of righteousness from God on Judgment Day is logically caused by sanctification” then I disagree, that cannot be proven in scripture.

[Galatians is talking about works of the law, not works universally]

Yes and no. Yes, the immediate subject is works of the law. But notice what Paul says in Galatians 2:16:

yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

He says “not by one thing, but by faith”. When someone says “it won’t be by the Chevy that I get to town, but by the Cadillac” then we know only the Cadillac will do. And it’s clear from other writings that the Cadillac and the Honda aren’t the same thing. So we know it’s not by the Honda.

I suppose you’re right that Galatians 2:16 isn’t the most clear proof text with regard to works universal. Sorry, that’s just what I happened to come up with. A more clear proof text against works universal might be Romans 4:4-8.

I’m happy to clarify or prove any of this further.

(Limited to three posts again )

 

[catholicray]

I actually used Romans against Galatians if you review what I wrote. I would say Romans more clearly shows that “works of the law” is a phrase that does not refer to works universally. Please review my references to Romans and get back to me.

I’d also appreciate if you review the verse you cited to support submission of the Church to Scripture. I have reviewed it thoroughly and that reading can not be supported when carefully studied. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[catholicray]

1 Timothy 3:15 - RSVCE

“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

I’d like to thoroughly rebut your position on this verse. The subject which is bound by Scripture according to this verse is the one in the household of God. In contrast, in order for this verse to establish a relationship of submission between the Church and Scripture, it would have to say something close to the following:

“In order that you may know how the household of God ought to behave”

This verse grammatically suggests that Scripture equips “members” of the household of God with the knowledge as to how to behave “in” the household of God. You’re misreading this verse somehow. I hope this helps.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Notice that Jesus doesn’t say, “pass on Scripture alone”

I didn’t say he did, because you didn’t say “Jesus never said to pass on Scripture alone” but you said:

He never commanded anyone to pass on Scripture.

I tore down your counter argument in the quickest fashion I could find.

Basically, you’re admitting that you’re simply being argumentative. You admit that Jesus did not command the passing on of Scripture alone. So why do you follow a group that claims that Scripture alone is a legitimate doctrine?

What you actually wrote …

It doesn’t matter, you know that this discussion is about Scripture alone. But you want to follow a rabbit hole in order to avoid the actual debate.

Bottomline, Sola Scriptura is a manmade FALSE doctrine, you know it, but you continue to argue for it.

 

[TULIPed]

You are correct that I ought not to be condemning, and that I do not know that @catholicray has not found salvation. And I, too, have been touched by many Catholics’ hearts.

@catholicray please forgive me for being condemning.

Aw come on T! Now you’re just showing off!

It’s stuff like this that makes me smile - and I know makes our King very, very happy.

God bless.

 

[thomat65]

Either St. Paul has contradicted himself and rendered God a liar or the terms “works” and “works of the law” have a difference in meaning.

You are correct that Paul is most directly talking about works of the law here, too. But there’s a third option that makes moot the distinction: the number of people who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality is zero. Romans 3:9-11

we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."

…and read through to vv 19-20

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Paul does a similar thing (defines the set of righteous people and then goes on to demonstrate that it’s empty) starting in Romans 2:17.

It’s a terrible analogy if your trying to sustain faith alone.

It was an attempt to sustain scripture alone, or at least scripture and not the church being necessary.

When I capitalize truth it refers to Jesus who is the Truth unless there is some other truth you think the Scriptures are referring to? Thus all truths find their conclusion in Christ or they are false. What truth do suppose the Scriptures are referencing here if it not the Truth?

I suppose it’s talking about one of the truths which you agree does not share the identity of Christ. If a truth finds its conclusion in Christ then it does not have to be Christ but only “sums up” into him, so to speak. For example, the statement “if true, then true” is not the eternal Son of God but is merely truth. Yes, it reflects something true about Christ. And yes the Son, being God and omnipresent, is located in those words as you read them on your screen. But God is also located everywhere those words aren’t.

So I’m wondering why “truth” is necessarily Christ in “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”? There do exist instances of “way” and “life” in scripture which necessarily do not refer to Christ, such as in Matthew 7:13 and Luke 16:25.

if you remove the Church from this world then the truth of Christ effectively dies

The truth of Christ would persist in God, the minds of those in heaven, etc.

More to the point, the truth of Christ would remain in the written scriptures. I’ll use your authority: CCC 134 says “all Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ”. And Christ, being God, existed before the Church did. The Scripture is not dependent on the Church for existence. Therefore, the Scripture could continue to exist without the Church.

The truth does not fall totally if the church ceases. Would there cease to be proclamation of the gospel? Would Christ cease to be preached here on earth? To a large extent. But not totally.

 

[thomat65]

Does he submit as a servant to a master?

Yes, as a servant and slave to the Master. “Paul, a slave of Christ” Romans 1:1. “James, a slave of Christ” James 1:1. “Peter, a slave of Christ” 2 Peter 1:1. “Jude, a slave of Christ” Jude 1. “From Christ for his slaves” Revelation 1:1.

The master being good, gentle, nourishing, and faithful as the perfect husband does not negate the fact that he is master over the church. Neither does the fact that the church’s submission is very sweet, as a voluntary lover.

The church does not sustain Christ. It’s the other way around. The church does not keep Christ from falling over, or give life to him, or anything like that.

I dislike the nonsense that supposes that God is submissive to his own Word rather than in complete communion with it for eternity. God is God and His Word is God. If the relationship is one of submission then God is inferior to his own Word. If the relationship is pure communion then God is in love with His own Word. I choose the latter it simply makes more sense in the bigger picture. It’s simple, you assume submission, I assume sacrifice and love equals an immutable communion.

I have not denied sacrifice and love and communion. I am asserting submission which you are denying exists in the (Trinity’s?) immutable communion and in the church toward Christ. I take umbrage to it being called an assumption: I’m trying to show this from the scriptures, not from a philosophy that I have invented.

It’s not nonsense that God is submissive to the Word. God the Spirit, who is God, is submissive to God the Son who is the Word: Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, John 6:7.

It is not nonsense that God has bound himself by his own written word “to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose” Hebrews 6:17. That’s what it says and what it means.

Tell me, what would happen if God decided to go against his own word? Then he would not be true. And God must be true. Therefore, God has no choice in this matter–God must submit to his own word.

It’s not like there’s some great internal struggle within the Godhead, like the Father really wants something done that the Son doesn’t and so the Father overpowers the Son and beats him into submission–nothing like that at all. The Three are perfectly One. Yet there is still submission, as is plain in the verses I brought out.

 

[thomat65]

Now for some philosophy. You used the phrase “free will” in a sense that makes me believe you would object by saying “but submission is opposed to freedom of the will!” But that is not true.

The ability to freely choose from any possible option is not freedom. That type of freedom doesn’t even exist. Not even God has that type of freedom. Can God himself tempt anyone with evil? So why would anyone assume that mere mortals have more freedom than God?

Free will is the exercise of choice according to nature. Man in his fallen state chooses sin in accord with his nature. God chooses righteousness in accord with his nature. This is the type of “free will” that men and God have.

Freedom is being able to choose things you enjoy now and will never regret. God enjoys the highest freedom because he does everything he pleases and no one can ever say to him “what have you done?” and he never regrets anything (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29). In God are pleasures forevermore (Psalm 16:11), not regrets over past choices.

When God regenerates someone and sets them free in Christ then he sets them free from sin and makes them willing and glad servants of Christ, pleased to be in bondage to Christ’s will which is so excellent. They look forward to the day when they will no longer be tempted with the things of which they are now ashamed (Romans 6:21), free from the influence of sin, free to always choose only that which pleases God, free to always do what they now want instead of doing that which leads to their later regret.

Submission is not necessarily opposed to freedom or to free will.

1 Timothy was written to give instruction to Timothy on how the household of God was to behave. I am not wrong about this. 1 Timothy 4:6, 11, 5:7, etc. 1 Timothy is binding on the household of God.

I maintain that I’m not wrong.

You admit the verse is binding on the members of the household of God. Well, the members are the household of God. 1 Timothy 3:4-5

He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

You can see the parallel that is established between (a) the elder’s own household and (b) the members of his household. And the parallel between (a) the elder’s own household and (c ) God’s church. Therefore, God’s church is equated to the members within it.

It’s like Paul says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 3:16: the members themselves are God’s temple.

The church is not a building. It’s not even the organization of people into hierarchies. It is the people themselves.

Where are you getting the distinction between the household of God and its members?

(still catching up, but am limited to three posts…)

 

[De_Maria]

It seems that John 3:36, in harmony with Paul’s, Peter’s, James’, and others’ writings, is saying that true belief is inseparable from obedience. There is no such thing as “believing in the Son” (in the sense of John 3:36) that does not play out as obeying the Son. And one cannot obey the Son without first believing in him. To paraphrase James 2:18, “c’mon, just try to show me your faith without using works to do so.”

And so, you have also disproved the idea of “faith alone”. Because you have proved that obedience is necessary. As the Scripture says elsewhere:

Hebrews 5:9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

 

[margaret42]

It’ like, “What does Jesus mean vs. what do I think it means.”? Everyone has a different interpretation?

 

[margaret42]

I like to think of the Bible as a biography of Christ’s life, meaning that the Church had to come first, for it to be written about.

 

[catholicray]

There is no such thing as “believing in the Son” (in the sense of John 3:36) that does not play out as obeying the Son. And one cannot obey the Son without first believing in him. To paraphrase James 2:18, “c’mon, just try to show me your faith without using works to do so.”

1st Corinthians 13:2 ~ RSVCE

“And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

What do you think Paul is saying here then?
He clearly separates faith and love. He supposes faith without love is possible. What do you make of his words when says that if he does not have love then he is nothing?

More to the point, the truth of Christ would remain in the written scriptures.

From your perspective the Church is made up solely of it’s members. I disagree but I digress. My point remains regardless. Those in heaven are still technically members and are in fact the Church. Remove the Church entirely historically and you effectively would not have Scripture. Members of the Household of God, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote Sacred Scripture. No Church, no New Testament, and no one to tell the truth. Therefore I believe the word truth to refer to the Gospel which is Christ of which the Church is the pillar and bulwark of.

The truth does not fall totally if the church ceases.

The truth would remain with the life death and ascension of Christ if he had not established his Church in men. So as I said before the truth would not factually die but it would be muted upon the ascension of Christ without the Church.

 

[catholicray]

Tell me, what would happen if God decided to go against his own word?

This is a non starter the question is flawed and relies on the way we think of our own word. God’s word is himself. We operate much of the time under duality and so our word is not at all times ourself. Therefore we think of the submission of ourselves to our own word. This sort of duality does not exist in God. God is not submissive to His word and His word is not submissive to Him because His word is Him. It’s simple God is not submissive to God. God is one.

You may ask why Jesus is shown to be submissive to the will of the Father. It is his human nature which is submissive to the Father until all is fulfilled. At least that is my understanding I can always learn more concerning the Holy Trinity. I would say ultimately that God is a complete union and there is no division to the point that one person of the trinity is submissive rather than in communion through love and sacrifice. I honestly think you mistake sacrifice for submission. There is a fair amount of difference between the two and sacrifice relieves the need for submission within the Trinity.

You admit the verse is binding on the members of the household of God. Well, the members are the household of God. 1 Timothy 3:4-5

I’m going to end here for now I have to return to work.

Matthew 18:15-17 ~ RSVCE

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Here we see three members are gathered to tell their brother his fault. Yet three members do not constitute the Church. How come?

 

[margaret42]

This subject has so many interesting thoughts of what the Church and Scripture mean. Just reading scripture, i’m encouraged to ask, “What does/did Jesus mean”?
Here are some things I believe from these types of discussions/debates:1. Scripture doesn’t mean much without interpretation. And since it was written about after the foundation of the Catholic Church, then the Church itself is the authority, not the Bible. What if the apostles weren’t inspired to write? Jesus was still born, and taught what we’ve learned along the way.
2. The Bible is the story of God’s plan; so the life of Christ came first, and it was later written about.
3. If faith alone is the answer, then why is life so hard? Jesus came, in Faith to his Father, but with a hard life to show us. For the real reason of how to come to heaven.