Sola scriptura is logically untenable

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,13:34)

Is the Pope the Holy Spirit to you?

Ask me in a different thread.

Doesn't it bother any of you that you believe something you can't support? – Sola Scriptura

August 26, 2009 at 1:44 am#142392

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,13:37)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,13:34)

Is the Pope the Holy Spirit to you?

Ask me in a different thread.

Doesn't it bother any of you that you believe something you can't support? – Sola Scriptura

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura I believe like some others here in; God Alone

You do believe in a form of Sola Scriptura and it's just whatever the church writes you believe as true, there is no difference whther you say Bible alone or Church writings alone, the point is the Holy Spirit is in no way active in your life.

August 26, 2009 at 1:47 am#142397

Participant

Quote

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura I believe like some others here in; God Alone

You mean YOU alone. Or should I say Mohammad alone? Why do you follow a prophet who thought he was demon possessed? A prophet who foamed at the mouth and such?

August 26, 2009 at 1:57 am#142399

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,13:47)

Quote

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura I believe like some others here in; God Alone

You mean YOU alone. Or should I say Mohammad alone? Why do you follow a prophet who thought he was demon possessed? A prophet who foamed at the mouth and such?

You are being quite provocative, why would you resort to molesting my words. But Just so you know Muhammad was a Man and The Quran was delivered to him by Gabriel who stands in the Presence of God and whoever is an enemy of Gabriel is an enemy of God.

Wasn't it Islam that removed the false chuch out of the middle east and stopped its rise?

August 26, 2009 at 2:01 am#142401

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,13:57)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,13:47)

Quote

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura I believe like some others here in; God Alone

You mean YOU alone. Or should I say Mohammad alone? Why do you follow a prophet who thought he was demon possessed? A prophet who foamed at the mouth and such?

Wasn't it Islam that removed the false chuch out of the middle east and stopped its rise?

See, it wasn't that hard to tell me what you really believe.

Just so you know, I have Muslim friends. And I wouldn't have used that type of conversation with those sweet people. You were just being way too cryptic.

Now we can talk on an even plain. I know who you are. And you know who I am.

August 26, 2009 at 2:26 am#142408

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,14:01)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,13:57)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,13:47)

Quote

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura I believe like some others here in; God Alone

You mean YOU alone. Or should I say Mohammad alone? Why do you follow a prophet who thought he was demon possessed? A prophet who foamed at the mouth and such?

Wasn't it Islam that removed the false chuch out of the middle east and stopped its rise?

See, it wasn't that hard to tell me what you really believe.

Just so you know, I have Muslim friends. And I wouldn't have used that type of conversation with those sweet people. You were just being way too cryptic.

Now we can talk on an even plain. I know who you are. And you know who I am.

Actually, you don't know who I am and your hypocrisy towards you “Muslim” friends is appalling.

BTW, How was I cryptic?

August 26, 2009 at 4:34 am#142429

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,14:26)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,14:01)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,13:57)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,13:47)

Quote

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura I believe like some others here in; God Alone

You mean YOU alone. Or should I say Mohammad alone? Why do you follow a prophet who thought he was demon possessed? A prophet who foamed at the mouth and such?

Wasn't it Islam that removed the false chuch out of the middle east and stopped its rise?

See, it wasn't that hard to tell me what you really believe.

Just so you know, I have Muslim friends. And I wouldn't have used that type of conversation with those sweet people. You were just being way too cryptic.

Now we can talk on an even plain. I know who you are. And you know who I am.

Actually, you don't know who I am and your hypocrisy towards you “Muslim” friends is appalling.

BTW, How was I cryptic?

You have some nerve, you hypocritical little twit. They are my real friends. No strings attached. And they know I strongly disagree with their point of view and why.

So if you really believe that Gabriel REALLY appeared to Mohammad, but aren't a Muslim then what in the world are you?

Are you like Bahai or some woo woo all roads lead to heaven person?

Are you a snake worshipper?

Are you a shamanistic animist?

What are you? What do you believe?

August 26, 2009 at 5:13 am#142432

Participant

Hi CA,
The self appointed and worldly catholic priests are the successors to the anointed men of God?
Preaching the lordship of Jesus is not relevant when they teach what he did not teach.

August 26, 2009 at 6:19 am#142451

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,16:34)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,14:26)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,14:01)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 26 2009,13:57)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,13:47)

Quote

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura I believe like some others here in; God Alone

You mean YOU alone. Or should I say Mohammad alone? Why do you follow a prophet who thought he was demon possessed? A prophet who foamed at the mouth and such?

Wasn't it Islam that removed the false chuch out of the middle east and stopped its rise?

See, it wasn't that hard to tell me what you really believe.

Just so you know, I have Muslim friends. And I wouldn't have used that type of conversation with those sweet people. You were just being way too cryptic.

Now we can talk on an even plain. I know who you are. And you know who I am.

Actually, you don't know who I am and your hypocrisy towards you “Muslim” friends is appalling.

BTW, How was I cryptic?

You have some nerve, you hypocritical little twit. They are my real friends. No strings attached. And they know I strongly disagree with their point of view and why.

So if you really believe that Gabriel REALLY appeared to Mohammad, but aren't a Muslim then what in the world are you?

Are you like Bahai or some woo woo all roads lead to heaven person?

Are you a snake worshipper?

Are you a shamanistic animist?

What are you? What do you believe?

Can you please stop molesting me with your false views about me?
Are you a priest of the CC?

August 26, 2009 at 6:21 am#142455

Participant

How dare you even think the word “molest”. Someone please block this guy. I'm done speaking with you, sir.

August 26, 2009 at 6:38 am#142461

david

Participant

Saying “Sola Scriptura is logically untenable” is great for the person who doesn't follow scripture….or can't back up his beliefs by scripture, or does things that obviously go against scripture…..etc.

August 26, 2009 at 6:39 am#142462

david

Participant

Quote

Scripture claims to be God-breathed or inspired. We taught the world to believe this.

Are you speaking of forced conversion here?

August 26, 2009 at 6:45 am#142463

david

Participant

Quote

The Bible never claims to be the only rule for faith and practice.

But if someone comes after and teaches things that are clearly different but says “it's ok, we are old, and have a history, so the Bible is wrong and we are right” …. which is right…God's Word, or the tradition?

1 TIMOTHY 4:1-3 (c. 61-64 C.E.)
“However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.”

August 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm#142487

dirtyknections

Participant

When the holy spirit guides you to understand this scripture:

Hebrews 13:11-14 (New Living Translation)

11 Under the old system, the high priest brought the blood of animals into the Holy Place as a sacrifice for sin, and the bodies of the animals were burned outside the camp. 12 So also Jesus suffered and died outside the city gates to make his people holy by means of his own blood. 13 So let us go out to him, outside the camp, and bear the disgrace he bore. 14 For this world is not our permanent home; we are looking forward to a home yet to come.

You will understand why your belief about the Catholic Church is futile..and wont save you (or condemn you for that matter)

August 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm#142523

Participant

Hi CA,
Your argument is with Jesus.
” The wise man digs deep and lays his foundation on rock and that rock is my teachings..”

Is GREEK LOGIC your preference?

August 27, 2009 at 4:57 am#142580

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,10:13)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 26 2009,08:43)

Following along….finding this most facinating!

Love you bro's,
Mandy

I am so pleased. Thank you for taking the time to listen to the point of view I have adopted and love.

Did you get a chance to listen to “Answering Common Objections”?

Hey CA,

I intend to listen to the whole thing! Right now I'm getting the kiddos ready for school. It's been a bit time consuming. Knowing your history, I truly want to know what has convinced you so……..

I'm glad you're here. It's enlightening to have your point of view here. I hope you stay and press on. Many more read than post.

Love,
Mandy

September 1, 2009 at 9:59 pm#143643

Participant

1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

2. The “Word of God” Refers to Oral Teaching Also

“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

“For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text”

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian
believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.”

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

September 1, 2009 at 10:04 pm#143647

Participant

Hi CA,
Thy word is truth.
But men prefer their own words and traditions.

September 1, 2009 at 10:18 pm#143653

Participant

Quote (david @ Aug. 26 2009,18:38)

What are you talking about? Gibberish!

We are the ones who truly honor Scripture in the highest sense AND have the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

You're stalling, David. You can't handle this conversation. Just admit it.

September 1, 2009 at 10:24 pm#143656