Sola Scriptura is logically untenable

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

You all have a very nice forum here. I am so glad to see so many seriously seeking to know God who is Truth.

Most here that I have read seem to have one doctrine in common: Sola Scriptura. The idea that the Bible Alone is the only rule for faith and practice. I submit that this is a self-refuting proposition.

The Bible never claims to be the only rule for faith and practice. Scripture claims to be God-breathed or inspired. We taught the world to believe this. It claims to be inerrant. We also taught the world to believe this over a millennium before Martin Luther ever came along. It claims to be the Word of God. We also taught the world to believe this.

But the Sacred Scriptures are NOT the only authoritative rule for belief and practice

It is not sufficient. And I would submit that the wide variance of opinions held by sincere seekers is proof that it is insufficient.

Why? Because the Scriptures need to be interpreted. And herein lies the problem. Each of us is FALLABLE. And therefore so is our interpretation.

It is amazing to me to see so many who believe that the Holy Spirit was able to preserve the written text of Scripture and yet not believe that He preserved an infallible interpreter of those Scriptures.

I think this is probably a good start. Along with the obvious opposition this statement is sure to receive here. I am curious to know how many here have every really considered what I am proposing.

FYI, this is the ancient belief of every church of apostolic origin: Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Maronite.

I'm looking forward to this discussion.

CatholicApologist

S

starvn4truth Aug 23, 2009

I assume that when you use "we" you are refering to the catholic church.
There is no need for intellectual debate or discussion. Rather a need for more historical research and understanding regarding the origin of catholicism and even the reformation for that matter. In neither of these groups will you find the humble child like believers who suffered for the faith and were actually killed by these groups who termed them heretics for not bowing down to the imposed secular religion of the time but rather humbly worshipped the LORD in spirit and in truth.
Flee your religion. Recognize your broken condition. Humble yourself and pray for the new life Jesus offers and wait upon Him.

Praying for you in Jesus' name,

Mike Stepien

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

In neither of these groups will you find the humble child like believers who suffered for the faith and were actually killed by these groups who termed them heretics

Which group of "humble child like believers" were you referring to?

The Gnostics? The Circumcisers (First Century)? Montanism (Late Second Century)? Iconoclasm (Seventh and Eighth Centuries)? Catharism (Eleventh Century)? I could go on.

But you are stalling. Please rebut my statement if you are able.

Nowhere does the Bible claim to be the ONLY rule for faith and practice.

If you can't prove me wrong from Scripture, then you have a self-refuting proposition.

I

InTheLight Aug 23, 2009

Welcome to SermonIndex.

Most here that I have read seem to have one doctrine in common: Sola Scriptura. The idea that the Bible Alone is the only rule for faith and practice. I submit that this is a self-refuting proposition.

This is a straw man you are setting up by defining Sola Scriptura in these terms. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only source of truth, rather it means that the Bible is the only source of inerrant authority.

The Bible claims to be the word of God and I believe that the Bible substantiates that claim. If someone else is going to come along and claim to be a source of inerrant authority they then have the burden of substantiating that claim. If they don't demonstrate this then the Bible stands alone as the sole source just by process of elimination.

Why? Because the Scriptures need to be interpreted. And herein lies the problem. Each of us is FALLABLE. And therefore so is our interpretation. It is amazing to me to see so many who believe that the Holy Spirit was able to preserve the written text of Scripture and yet not believe that He preserved an infallible interpreter of those Scriptures.

This is a bit of untenable logic of your own. In one breath you claim that each is fallable, and then in the next you seem to claim that there is an infallible interpreter. Which is it?

In Christ,

Ron

A

anonymity Aug 23, 2009

Well,

the Law in the Bible claims to be the only truth.

The New Covenant also claims to be the only truth.

The Apostle's also claimed that they held the only truth. Therefore their writings are also the only truth.

So in these things we have the Bible as a whole which claims to be the only truth.

The main thing is that the Catholic Church has sought to add their tradition to the Scripture.

We do not hold that the Pope's have Apostolic succession nor that certain traditions that are not in the Bible have been passed on. This is mainly because many of the practices are unbiblical and that there is also a lack of proof to these claims on your side.

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, 1Corinthians 4:6

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

Sir, I dont know what you're up to, besides endevouring to stir up a whole lot of controversy, but let me ask you this question: what kind of feckless cur would I be, if I went onto a forum hosted by some variant of the roman institution, and asked, "How can the pope proclaim himself the "vicar" of Christ, when in reality he is the man of perdition?"

Would that be a conversation starter on such a forum? That's just looking for a cyber fight, which is what I think you are doing.

Light has no fellowship with darkness.

I'm sure there are many poor souls trapped within that scarlet whore of babylon, the roman institution that genuinely love Jesus, and I pray God frees them from this hellish system, some call the "roman catholic church". There's nothing "catholic" about it in the true definition of the word, and it certainly isnt a "church", or part of the Church, which is the Body of Christ, its just a satanic ruse with its popery, priestcraft, superstitution, mary worship, and it's gaggle of predatory homosexual priests that papa tries to either bury under the rug, or buy off the victims of these deviants who infest this demonic institution.

Repent now and flee rome, before you split hell wide open. Did I make that plain enough for you?

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

Dear brothers,
I urge in the Love of Christ, lock this thread, its just troll bait, and certainly not edifying. I said what I HAD to say, I didnt enjoy saying it, but it had to be said....neil

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

Sir, have you ever even BEEN to a Catholic forum? If you had, you wouldn't have made such a silly accusation. There is probably every stripe of anti-Catholic such as yourself at:

http://forums.catholic.com/

I'm not in the least offended by your ignorant and superstitious, fear-filled assessment of the Church Jesus Christ left behind. I once was ignorant like you. Praise the name of Jesus, He opened my eyes to the truth through His grace.

So, no, I don't want a cyber fight. But I would to God that I could fight and overcome whatever force of Hell is blinding your mind to the truth.

BTW, you didn't answer my question. Show me a Scripture that claims that the Bible is the ONLY rule for faith and practice. Until you can, how can I expect to take you seriously?

S

starvn4truth Aug 23, 2009

Donatists, Stablers, Catharers, etc. Names given by the catholic church, and evenetually by the reformers as well, to label those humbly following Jesus outside the realm of religious arrogancy. God always keeps a remnant. See "The Reformers and Their Stepchildren" Leonard Verduin.

Your pride in your position blinds you from the truth which is in Christ.

Flee your religion. Recognize your broken condition. Humble yourself and pray for the new life Jesus offers and wait upon Him.

Praying for you in Jesus' name,

Mike Stepien

J

jlosinski Aug 23, 2009

Catholic,
It may be helpful to engage with only one or two of the brother or sisters here, as opposed to the few dozen that will likely post responses (myself included).

HOWEVER...

I'm sure that you are aware that your position "~~[i]~~~~[b]~~...the Bible Alone is the only rule for faith and practice. I submit that this is a self-refuting proposition.[/b][/i]" is not the majority view on this site (which, btw, is centered on biblical revival). There are plenty of other sites dedicated to the type of dialogue that you desire, and plenty of sites that contain answers to your presuppositions (which obviously aren't original).

THEREFORE...

You have already shown that you are convinced of your position concerning ~~[u]~~~~[i]~~your[/i][/u] bible, so what is your intent? Is there any chance that your mind may be changed by the scriptures and doctrine that will be put forth? Perhaps a better question may be:
~~[i]~~~~[b]~~What proof could we offer to you that would change your mind?[/b][/i]

If you can't think of any, move on please.

Semper Sola Fide,
Joe

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

Welcome to SermonIndex.

Thanks. Great to be here.

This is a straw man you are setting up by defining Sola Scriptura in these terms. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only source of truth, rather it means that the Bible is the only source of inerrant authority.

Note taken. Since you are representing the Sola Scriptura side, I am more than happy to admit your clarification. I think it is quite helpful since I once held it myself. So let's go on from here. Where does the Bible claim to be the ONLY source of inerrant authority? Please see the following Scripture:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." - 2 Thess. 2:15 (KJV used as an olive branch)

So there are two forms of Sacred Tradition that are commanded to be kept.

A. Oral Tradition (by word)
B. Written Tradition (our epistle)

You can't have one without the other. Jesus commanded His apostles to preach (oral) and disciple (oral).

Which came first, the church or the Bible? Were the first Christians at Jerusalem and Antioch "Sola Scriptura"?

The Bible claims to be the word of God and I believe that the Bible substantiates that claim.

There is no argument between us here. We taught the world to believe this over a millennium before Luther.

If someone else is going to come along and claim to be a source of inerrant authority they then have the burden of substantiating that claim.

Aren't you assuming that the Bible has made that claim? It hasn't. So where does that put you?

If they don't demonstrate this then the Bible stands alone as the sole source just by process of elimination.

Um..no..

The Scriptures are obviously not written like a catechism or council that leave no question to the casual reader as to proper interpretation. Here's a few examples:

Acts 8:30,31 "And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. "

Why couldn't he just read and understand? Sola Scriptura...right? Why did he need a man to explain it to him?

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Pet. 3:16

Are you sure a child can pick up a Bible and understand it? Wouldn't a child fit the bill for "unlearned"?

Food for thought. I'm asking you before God to be honest with yourselves.

I mean, didn't you receive the doctrine of Sola Scriptura through tradition? Didn't someone hand you a Bible and say "this is the only inerrant source for authority in your life"? You took them at their word. Right?

This is a bit of untenable logic of your own. In one breath you claim that each is fallable, and then in the next you seem to claim that there is an infallible interpreter. Which is it?

Not quite. We are fallible as humans. But just as the writers of Scripture were fallible and had a divine charism to write Scripture infallibly, so also the Holy Spirit is with the church in her councils to prevent her from error. Else have the gates of hell prevailed against the church?

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

Last time I checked, the title of this section was "Scriptures and Doctrine". So forgive me if you sound a bit afraid of having your views challenged.

This issue has deep ramifications in the area of revival, renewal, and the moving of the Holy Spirit.

Or do you not believe that the Holy Spirit moved the writers of Scripture to write?

I think it's a bit funny that you signed your post "Semper Sola Fide" which I'm assuming many here would also decry as heresy.

If you don't like people disagreeing with you, why are you even here?

M

MaryJane Aug 23, 2009

Greetings Catholic

I do not know your motives for coming here to this forum, I pray that its the Fathers leading so that you might be set free from the bondage that is the Catholic church. You sound very much like my mother who sadly has placed her faith and trust in the tradition of men instead of Christ Jesus. I will be praying for you, debating you at this point does no good.

Praying
mj

J

jlosinski Aug 23, 2009

Catholic,
No need to ask for forgivness, I wasn't afraid :). I question your motiviations for posting here, which is not an unreasonable thing to do, and simply think that you could find more fulfilling "discussion" on sites more suited for this type of thing.

My last question still stands, if you cannot (or will not) answer it, it would be best to move on.
Semper Solus Christus,
Joe

A

ADisciple Aug 23, 2009

It is amazing to me to see so many who believe that the Holy Spirit was able to preserve the written text of Scripture and yet not believe that He preserved an infallible interpreter of those Scriptures.

...But there IS in the earth an infallible interpreter of the canon of Scripture: the Vicar of Christ: the Holy Spirit Himself. Any man who takes upon himself that title is anti-christ.

I

InTheLight Aug 23, 2009

There is no argument between us here. We taught the world to believe this over a millennium before Luther.

Aren't you assuming that the Bible has made that claim? It hasn't. So where does that put you?

Sir, if you agree that the Bible is the word of God then by definition that makes it a source of innerant authority. The Bible clearly claims in places to numerous to mention here that it is the Word of God. Only if you believe God to be errant is His word errant.

I affirm again, the Bible subtatiates itself as the word of God (and therefore a source of inerrant authority). The Holy Spirit within me bears witness to its authority. I have found in practical living experience in walking with the Lord Jesus Christ that the Bible contains the mind of God, and the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the hapiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

All other comers have yet to substatiate such a claim therefore the Bible stands alone. This is Sola Scriptura.

I mean, didn't you receive the doctrine of Sola Scriptura through tradition? Didn't someone hand you a Bible and say "this is the only inerrant source for authority in your life"? You took them at their word. Right?

Where something was learned is of no relevance to whether it is true or not. That's like saying, "you only believe 2+2=4 because a schoolteacher told you. Yes, but does 2+2=4? Only if you can prove 2+2 does not equal 4 would it be of interest to discuss how I came to believe that it does.

In addition, the Holy Spirit bears witness to the authority of the word in a living relationship with the Lord. "But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie--just as it has taught you, abide in him."
(1John 2:27 ESV )

Not quite. We are fallible as humans. But just as the writers of Scripture were fallible and had a divine charism to write Scripture infallibly, so also the Holy Spirit is with the church in her councils to prevent her from error. Else have the gates of hell prevailed against the church?

Indeed the Holy Spirit is with and in every truly born-again believer but your claim that each is fallable and yet there is an infallible interpreter still remains illogical.

In Christ,

Ron

sermonindex Aug 23, 2009

Sir, if you agree that the Bible is the word of God then by definition that makes it a source of inerrant authority. The Bible clearly claims in places to numerous to mention here that it is the Word of God. Only if you believe God to be errant is His word errant.

Yes. The Bible is inerrant. But it needs to be interpreted.

I affirm again, the Bible subtatiates itself as the word of God (and therefore a source of inerrant authority). The Holy Spirit within me bears witness to its authority. I have found in practical living experience in walking with the Lord Jesus Christ that the Bible contains the mind of God, and the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the hapiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

You speak of the Bible as though it needs no interpretation or clarification or careful exegesis to be understood.

Further, let me ask you on what authority you rest that the canon of Scriptures on which you rely are indeed the Word of God?

The Bible contains no table of contents.

I mean, how do you know that Philemon belongs in the Bible. Don't give me this burning in the bosom stuff. Because your experience is subjective and can fail you to your eternal peril. You do not hear God clearly 100% of the time. I'm sure you don't claim to. So an internal witness doesn't suffice.

Indeed the Holy Spirit is with and in every truly born-again believer but your claim that each is fallable and yet there is an infallible interpreter still remains illogical.

I feel like I'm talking to a Mormon. St. Peter warns us against "private interpretation" of the scriptures. (burning in the bosom)

Sola Scriptura is Sola ME

R

RobertW Aug 23, 2009

Not quite. We are fallible as humans. But just as the writers of Scripture were fallible and had a divine charism to write Scripture infallibly, so also the Holy Spirit is with the church in her councils to prevent her from error. Else have the gates of hell prevailed against the church?

God designed the churches (plural) to exist independent of each other so as to prevent the spread of error through associations and hierarchies. Jesus Christ is the head of the church and makes His will known within the gathering to they that 'have an ear to hear what the Spirit is saying unto the churches.' (Revelation 2-3) The Spirit and the word of God agree.

Based upon what I see in your quote you believe the scripture is infallible. You also believe the Holy Spirit deals with the Church. The issue then is who is in authority to convey the mind of God in any particular gathering? The Jews that rejected Christ stole the authority unto themselves and set the pattern that would eventually be followed by the established Catholic Church post Constantine. I dealt with this in a few articles:

~~[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1958]~~Talmudic Revisionism and the Struggle for Authority[/url]

~~[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1962]~~The Silencing of the Prophetic Voice[/url]

~~[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1963]~~Dealing with those that rejected the Rabbi's[/url]

~~[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1959]~~It is NOT in Heaven[/url]

The problem is that folk seek to reserve the right to be the voice of God dealing with the churches by assuming authority that God has not given them. The rightly divided word of God is the final authority in matters of doctrine and practice. Again, the Spirit and the word agree. The Canon is closed, but God is still moving in the churches revealing what is the mind of the Spirit in real time. He did not just give us the book and say, 'now get on with it.' He desires to make His will known, but the question is how?

The Jews gave the authority to the Rabbi's.
The Catholic church gave it ultimately to the Pope.

But Paul did not trust men and commended the churches to God and to the word of His grace; that is, to give grace by bringing revelation to the people dealing with their present condition that would square with the written word of God in the midst of the congregation. (See Acts 20) This reality lifts the churches into a whole different level where it is necessary to recognize the Word of the Lord when it is coming to us and respond to it in faith. No one person or organization has been given the authority by God to function in this place; but reveals His Word severally as He wills and through whom He wills.

In this way the danger of error is greatly reduced as the conscious dependence is no longer on men but on God. It is His job to bring His word to the people or the person. He will do it. It is our job to have 'ears to hear what the Spirit saith' unto the churches. This command is repeated 7 times in Rev. 2-3. We must have ears to hear when God may chose at any moment in time for someone to be the vehicle of the word of His grace. God can speak through a mule or even our enemies; what is essential is that we recognize it is God speaking when He quickens the word to our hearts. When this happens though, if it is the Holy Spirit, it will never be in contradiction to the written word of God.

J

jlosinski Aug 23, 2009

Catholic,
As I've said already, there are dozens of sites that give a historic apologetic concerning the 66 books of scripture, it would behoove you to find your answers there. If you are not looking for answers, but rather helping us rethink our (in your opinion) wrong headed presuppositions, you are wasting your time here. Our brothers and sisters on this site do not hold to your beliefs, nor will they, God willing.

You have made your convictions known, as have we. Really, it's time to move on.

R

RobertW Aug 23, 2009

mean, how do you know that Philemon belongs in the Bible. Don't give me this burning in the bosom stuff. Because your experience is subjective and can fail you to your eternal peril. You do not hear God clearly 100% of the time. I'm sure you don't claim to. So an internal witness doesn't suffice.

You have to believe that God has been at work protecting the Revelation of Himself throughout history. Those that are serious students of the word of God recognize the absolute consistency of the revelation to the point that even the most learned of students have glimpses of the majesty of God as they discover it's wonder. I have heard men say that had put the entire New Testament to memory that the bible is so dead on that if they did not worship God they would worship their bible. But of course that would be bibliolatry. And yet I affirm the majesty of God revealed in the written word so as to see how each book is fitly framed together and interwoven into a symphony of truth in perfect equilibrium.