Where Does Scripture State That It Is the *Sole* Rule of Faith?

[Ani_Ibi]

Solo Scriptura is nothing but Scripture and Sola Scriptura is Scripture, tradition and teachers but of the three only Scripture is infallible. That is the short answer.

There are as many definitions of Sola Scriptura as there are Sola Scripturists. And I am not being rhetorical here. It is the truth.

In terms of what the language itself means:

Solo is an adverb. It modifies a verb.
Scriptura is a noun. Solo cannot modify a noun. Therefore Solo cannot modify Scriptura.

Sola is an adjective. It modifies a noun.
Scriptura is a noun. Sola can modify a noun.
Therefore *Sola *can modify Scriptura.

Here are examples of the use of the adverb and adjective in English:

I only eat beans. I do not drink beans, I do not herd beans, I do not fly beans.

I eat beans alone. I do not eat sponges, I do not eat lettuce, I do not sand.

See the difference?

So basically Solo Scriptura is a variant of jaberwocky. Therefore there can be no meaningful distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura.

Which leaves us right back with the problem of Sola Scriptura: If Scripture alone is infallible, then why waste time with tradition and teachers? The point being that even the most ardent Sola Scripturists depend on their pick of traditions and their pick of teachers for interpretation.

If folks were to rigorously and conscientiously apply Sola Scriptura, however, they would listen to no one else’s opinion. No teachers, no tele-crusaders, no friends, no translators, no church policy makers, no apologists, nobody.

And you would end up with as many opinions as there are Reformers. Lots of opinions, but zero church, because a group of individuals does not equal a team.

Big questions in my mind:

1. Did Jesus not say he was building a Church? Where would that church be among strict Sola Scripturists? Invisible?
2. Did Jesus not say he would like unity? Where is the unity among strict Sola Scripturists? In the invisible church?

Point is that Sola Scriptura is a catch-22. It is a logical contradiction. It cannot be practised.

Nice try though. Next?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cmancone:

Please, can you stop trying to dismiss my arguement out of hand and actually respond to it for once???

Oh let me! I will! :bounce:

cmancone:

I say: God came to me last night with a message for you. He wants you to give me all your money. You say: I don’t know if I trust you. How do I know you are speaking for God? I say: That’s easy! The Bible doesn’t say I’m NOT speaking for God, therefore I must be speaking for God! This is my point in a nutshell. There is no tradition required. It is a matter of common sense. If someone claims to speak for God, they must PROVE they speak for God…

Well everyone with a private interpretation claims they speak for God. But let’s see if they necessarily do.

• God is Truth, right?
• Truth cannot contradict Truth, right?
• So, if you have folks with private interpretations saying things which contradict each other, then those folks with private – and contradictory --interpretations are not speaking for God, right?

cmancone:

It is not the BIble’s job to say who doesn’t speak for God.

The Bible is a history of folks through whom God speaks as well as a history of folks not only through whom God does not speak but who never listen to God. So presumably it is the Bible’s job to say who doesn’t speak for God.

cmancone:

It is only the Bible’s job to demonstrate that it does speak for God.

Trouble is: the Bible is quite eloquent about who speaks for God. But quite silent about being included in that community of speakers.



continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cmancone:

It speaks only for itself, and only about itself.

Where? Oh, let’s see (apologies to God and John):

In the beginning there was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God.

Uh-oh. Then the Bible calls itself ‘he’. Not ‘it’ but ‘he’:

He was in the beginning with God. All things came about through him, and without him nothing came to be… And then it goes on to say The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

Not had come. But was coming. (Past progressive with future sense)

Yet the lion’s share of the Bible *had *already come. So what was the Bible talking about if not Jesus Himself who was the One who was coming at a time in the not-too-distant future from the time of John?

Is Jesus the Bible? No. Jesus is the Second Person of God. Always has been, is now, and always will be.

Jesus is not paper; nor leather; nor even text. He is a Person.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cmancone:

To expect the Bible to rule out every other option is ridiculous and silly.

This is the Universal Negative Strawman, as pointed out in the following quote:

[The argument for Sola Scriptura] is usually developed by saying that sola scriptura cannot be proven because it is a “universal negative” proposition. A universal negative is a proposition which can be stated in the form “No X are Y.” In the case of sola scriptura, the proposition might be “No things which are not Scripture are norms for our faith.” Universal negatives are difficult or impossible to prove.

The proposition in the Madrid/White debate, "The Bible teaches sola scriptura,"is an affirmative proposition, fitting the form, “The Bible teaches X.” It doesn’t matter what X is. X can be affirmative or negative, universal or particular. In order to win the debate, White would need to show that the Bible teaches X.

Imagine White speaking to Mormons (who are polytheists) during one of his visits to Salt Lake City and saying, “I don’t have to prove there is only one God. In fact, I can’t prove there is only one God, because to do that I would have to search the entire universe to see if there were a second god.” link

This searching of the entire universe to see if there were a second god would be ridiculous and silly, would it not?

Just like expecting the Bible to rule out every other option would be ridiculous and silly, would it not?

Yet you are claiming that we expect the Bible to rule out every option. You are claiming this even though it is not true.

We are not asking the Bible to rule out every option. We are asking you to show that the Bible says there is only one rule of faith and that it is Scripture.

White would be laughed out of Temple Square for using such an argument. To prove there is only one God he merely needs to show that the Bible says there is only one God, just as in the debate with Patrick Madrid he merely needed to show that the Bible says there is only one rule of faith and that it is Scripture. link

But White didn’t. And White can’t. Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the one rule of faith.

And if Scripture truly is the one rule of faith, then one would not have to go outside the Bible to prove it. Yet, that is exactly what is being attempted over and over and over again by Reformers, thus making Sola Scriptura a tradition of man – not Biblical.

The claim of Sola Scriptura to be the sole rule of faith, therefore, is self-contradictory and it is jaberwocky and therefore, although it may be practised down the Rabbit Hole, it cannot be practised on Earth.

Nice try though. Next?

 

[kaycee]

There are as many definitions of Sola Scriptura as there are Sola Scripturists. And I am not being rhetorical here. It is the truth.

There are also many interpretations of the CCC, Trent, Vatican I, etc… put forward by Catholics.

So basically Solo Scriptura is a variant of jaberwocky. Therefore there can be no meaningful distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura.

I guess i dont quite understand why you refuse to accept our definition of Sola Scriptura and you keep insisting that its not workable according to Your definition.

If folks were to rigorously and conscientiously apply Sola Scriptura, however, they would listen to no one else’s opinion. No teachers, no tele-crusaders, no friends, no translators, no church policy makers, no apologists, nobody.

Case in point. Your version of Sola Scriptura might result in that. Sola Scriptura, recognizes other authorities! Just not other Infallible Authorities.

1. Did Jesus not say he was building a Church? Where would that church be among strict Sola Scripturists? Invisible?

The Local Church of believers. It also includes the invisible Church as well.

1. Did Jesus not say he would like unity? Where is the unity among strict Sola Scripturists? In the invisible church?

Unity yes, but not at the sacrafice of doctrine or truth.

Why is it Augustine could say “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity”

The Church of his day did not have lockstep unity.

Point is that Sola Scriptura is a catch-22. It is a logical contradiction. It cannot be practised.

Your version of it, sounds like Solo to the extreme scriptura.

Is there perfect unity, no. There certainly wasn’nt lockstep under the Apostles!

Not sure why the insistance of one roof, one name, one uniform.

Jesus did not condemn the Jews for their different groups.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

There are also many interpretations of the CCC, Trent, Vatican I, etc… put forward by Catholics.

But kaycee! I thought that the topic of the thread was Where Does Scripture State That It Is the Sole Rule of Faith? That’s why I addressed my posts to Scripture as the Sole Rule of Faith. What changed?

 

[kaycee]

Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the one rule of faith.

Show me where the bible talks about the triple authorites of Scripture, Tradition, Magesterium?

 

[RalphP]

Ani Ibi said, “1) Did Jesus not say he was building a Church?”

Yes He did, What does the word “church” mean, a gathering. Jesus said He would build a gathering of men and woman who would believe and follow Him. He did not say He would build an institution as you may be thinking the word “church” means.

Ani Ibi said, “Where would that church be among strict Sola Scripturists?” Among those who have believed in the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Doesn’t every letter of the New Testament begin with, to the church of…? The letters are writtent to the gathering of Christians in the town the letters are written to.

Ani Ibi said, “2) Did Jesus not say he would like unity?”
He did. And in reality there is unity among true believers. If you think that unity means always agreeing, than we never had unity. Didn’t Paul and Peter disagree about how to act in Galatians, didn’t Paul have problems with the Corinthian church, wasn;t Paul and Barnabas divided over John Mark in Acts, has not the Orthodox church come from dividing themselves from the Catholic church and hasn’t every denomination up to around the 1800 come from the Catholic Church?

Ani Ibi said, “Where is the unity among strict Sola Scripturists?”
It is among those who have put their faith, trust, and belief in Jesus. Even if we disagree about end times, Spiritual gifts, woman pastors and so on, we are united by our faith in Christ.
Gal 3:26 It is through faith that all of you are God’s sons in union with Christ Jesus. TEV

Ani Ibi said, “Point is that Sola Scriptura is a catch-22. It is a logical contradiction. It cannot be practised.”

Sorry I strongly disagree. I see it practised all the time.

Ralph

 

[RalphP]

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi
Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the one rule of faith."

As I have already posted, Scriptures says Scripture is the only perfect rule of faith

Ralph

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

I guess i dont quite understand why you refuse to accept our definition of Sola Scriptura and you keep insisting that its not workable according to Your definition.

Let me help you then.

1. Reformers do not have only one definition of Sola Scriptura; they have many.
2. Notwithstanding that Reformers have many definitions of Sola Scriptura, I addressed my reply to the one definition of Sola Scriptura given – the definition which I quoted.
3. I have not insisted that Sola Scriptura is not workable according to my definition. I have demonstrated that Sola Scriptura is not workable according to one of the Reformers’ definitions; the definition which I quoted.

Nice try though. Next?

 

[BobCatholic]

I just added that any words of God found outside the Scriptures must be measured against the words found in the Scripture.

Oh really?

Then how do the answers to my infamous 4 questions measure up against the words found in scripture (when nobody’s found them yet in scripture)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2473250&postcount=163

Agreed, but the million dollar question is, what are the oral Apostolic tradition? That is where our disagreements are.

Yeah.

We believe that there are oral apostolic traditions, while sola scripturists deny they even exist

 

[RalphP]

Ani Ibi
Its our defenition to describe what we believe the Scriptures teach. I have respect for those Reformers but I don’t believe what I believe just because they do. I see Sola Scriptura in the Scriptures. My church uses the principles of Sola Scriptura as many other do. You can say we don’t and it doesn’t work all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that many of us use it.

Ralph

 

[BobCatholic]

DJim

Solo Scriptura is nothing but Scripture

Which is one definition of sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is Scripture, tradition and teachers but of the three only Scripture is infallible. That is the short answer.

That’s Prima Scriptura, not sola scriptura.

You really need to study up on your latin and find out what the words “sola scriptura” means

Now, which one of the many definitions of sola scriptura out there, is the true one? And where is this definition in the Bible?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi
Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the one rule of faith." As I have already posted, Scriptures says Scripture is the only perfect rule of faith

Quite possibly what you said received a response which cast its veracity in doubt. (Usually this is done by quoting the Scripture before and after the ‘prooftext.’) If not, please remind me – give me a link to it or give me the post number – and I will get right to it.

We aim to please.

 

[BobCatholic]

My church uses the principles of Sola Scriptura as many other do. You can say we don’t and it doesn’t work all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that many of us use it.

How does one practice sola scriptura when:

1. There is no firm definition of what it means.
2. The definition is not in the Bible.
3. Traditions are used
4. Magisteriums are used.

There is only one correct answer: Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[RalphP]

BobCatholic said, “We believe that there are oral apostolic traditions, while sola scripturists deny they even exist”

I don’t think that is true. We just disagree as to what they might be.

Ralph

 

[BobCatholic]

BobCatholic said, “We believe that there are oral apostolic traditions, while sola scripturists deny they even exist”

I don’t think that is true. We just disagree as to what they might be.

If there are Oral apostolic Traditions, they are infallible, and thus there goes sola (and prima) scriptura out the window.

 

[RalphP]

Ani Ibi its post #138. How do you put your quotes in the box?

Ralph

 

[kaycee]

Let me help you then.

1. Reformers do not have only one definition of Sola Scriptura; they have many.

A false assumption on your part.

Since some Catholics do indeed pray to Saints and think them to be semi deity, can I then condemn prayer to saints as unworkable because some Catholics are Idolators?

1. I have not insisted that Sola Scriptura is not workable according to my definition. I have demonstrated that Sola Scriptura is not workable according to one of the Reformers’ definitions; the definition which I quoted.

I think your private interpretation of it is off.

Uhuh, Nice try though. Next?

 

[RalphP]

BobCatholic

Silly Bob, don’t you know tricks are for kids.

Your questions don’t prove anything. I could come up the same question about , Mary, saints, indulgences… Come on you have to do better than that.

Ralph