The issues with Sola Scriptura

[Wolf_Says]

So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.

This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?

However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.

Now on the issue 3

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

 

[SeventyOne]

Your "authoritative" additions to scripture can't pass your 3-point test either.

 

[Razare]

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

This leads right into issue 2

The solution to this as an atheist who became a Christian, was that I reasoned/believed myself to scripture along with understanding given by God.

There is a God -> God endorses the Bible -> Therefore, the Bible is God's word

No circular reasoning needed.

However, there are different gods according to scripture. If you hear from a false one, they will not point you to the Bible.

How do you tell the difference? You have to figure it out. I figured it out, and when you learn the truth by God, from God, that truth steers you to more truth... and you arrive at scripture.

But if you fail in this process, you will be deceived, but what else can you do?

Circular reasoning vs. non-circular reasoning is irrelevant, though. What matters are seeds. Matthew 13

In our hearts, we either plant objective truth, or we plant lies. If lies grow, you end up more deceived. If truth grows, you gain further truth.

Logic for this process doesn't matter much, because logic is an after-affect of seed planting. Once you get a lot of seeds of God growing, most others become illogical because they fail to know the truth sufficiently in order to exercise logic correctly.

Such as the logic of believing axioms. This is just an assumption. It's a bad assumption too because objective truth exceeds the boundaries of man to fully know, and so knowing the truth is a supernatural endeavor that exceeds standard logical axioms. Logic can explain some of it as an after-effect, but logic is not the originating effect (the seed).

 

[Wolf_Says]

There is a God -> God endorses the Bible -> Therefore, the Bible is God's word

I never stated otherwise, what I am talking about is not Scripture, but the concept of Sola Scriptura which are not the same.

 

[Albion]

My own rejoinder to your points, Wolf:

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.

I believe this to be your first mistake. Believers in SS absolutely do not begin with the belief in SS, but in S (Scripture). The Bible is, by almost any reckoning, the most basic part of the Christian faith, and every church that I can think of -- and that we talk about here on CF -- agrees to the Bible as being its book of sacred writings. It's revelation. Nothing else comes close to its universality among Christians of all denominations, so why shouldn't it be a candidate, right off, for being the key authority on doctrine?

Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?

In short, it does. It not only speaks (almost 20 times by my count) of Scripture as being of the highest worth, but also of it being given to man by God and of being sufficient for our purposes (to know Christ and him as Lord and Savior). And I've already pointed out that all churches consider it to be revelation, even the Catholic ones that prefer Holy Tradition.

S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.

Another mistake. SS does not stipulate that everything must be found in the Bible. It says that everything necessary for God's purposes and for our salvation is to be found there.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible.

That's almost always because the doubters, generally Catholics, have been told by their churches that the Bible itself does not support the concept. When they challenge the rest of us with that assertion, the reply virtually HAS TO BE to point to verses which rebut such a mistaken claim.

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

That's correct.

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

How do you know that any competing "authority" has all the answers...yet you accept one of them (Holy Tradition)? You might have a point here if you were to argue that there is NO WAY of knowing God's will, but you aren't doing that, are you?

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself."

Whether or not that's true, it's not part of the definition of SS, so we should pass over it here and now.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

Same thing, this is not part of the definition of SS, and you are supposedly dealing with SS in this thread.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Not at all. Where'd you pick up such a notion?

 

[Thursday]

The solution to this as an atheist who became a Christian, was that I reasoned/believed myself to scripture along with understanding given by God.

There is a God -> God endorses the Bible -> Therefore, the Bible is God's word

Who told you that God endorses the bible?

Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?

 

[Razare]

There are also a few other ways to arrive at the Bible being God's word without circular reasoning... upon study, I have found them:

- It was impossible for the authors of the Bible to author it the way they did -> Therefore, (x number of possibilities) -> Elimination of possibilities -> God is the author

- Only document that contains infinite amounts of data -> Created by an infinite being

This later realization only happens in mature Christianity... so you already believe it all before you can get there. A seeker or many Christians will not see it.

- Word of God produces miracles / supernatural events + Moral supremacy -> Therefore, must be truth beyond what men possess of themselves -> Therefore, God

This one is shakier reasoning, but it works, because you end up seed planting when you do it, and that's the basis of truth.

But you see "shakier reasoning" is a fallacy because the way in which western reasoning is built, is founded upon false assumptions... the false assumption being the nature of an axiom as a finite statement. Truth seeds are either vast or infinite pieces of knowledge, as opposed to finite pieces of knowledge.

 

[Albion]

Who told you that God endorses the bible?

Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?

It actually doesn't matter. What matters is that we all do accept it as God's word. And if we say that we do, we cannot simultaneously treat it as incomplete or insufficient--not if it is God's word. Do you agree that it IS divine revelation??

 

[SeventyOne]

Can you explain how your substitution of 'scripture, tradition, and magisterium' for 'scripture alone' can cleanly pass your self-made 3-point test, without running into the same issues, and without creating a slippery slope?

 

[Thursday]

It actually doesn't matter.

How convenient!!

and funny

 

[Wolf_Says]

My own rejoinder to your points, Wolf:

I enjoy how you come across in your response, thank you. Let me answer in kind.

I believe this to be your first mistake. Believers in SS absolutely do not begin with the belief in SS, but in S. The Bible is, by almost an reckoning, the most basic thing to the Christian faith and every church that I can think of and that we talk about here agrees to the Bible as being its book of sacred writings. It's revelation. Nothing else comes close to it's universality among Christians of all denominations, so why shouldn't it be a candidate, right off, for the key authority on doctrine?

I have never disagreed that scripture is an authority, because it is the divinely inspired written word of God. I am saying that it is not the SOLE authority or HIGHEST authority, which is what SS claims.

In short, it does. It not only speaks (almost 20 times by my count) of Scripture as being of the highest worth, but also of it being given to man by God and of being sufficient for our purposes (to know Christ and him as Lord and Savior). And I've already pointed out that all churches consider it to be revelation, even the Catholic ones that prefer Holy Tradition.

I agree that all denominations believe in the importance of scripture. Once again I have never said otherwise. It does not state that scripture is the highest authority. Most verses in the Bible in reference to scripture are referring to the OT, which the apostles used to show the world that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in the OT.

Second mistake. SS does not stipulate that everything must be found in the Bible. It says that everything necessary for God's purposes and for our salvation is to be found there.

I apologize if my wording is confusing. I am referring to everything in regards to doctrine and practice.

That's almost always because the doubters, generally Catholics, have been told by their churches that the Bible itself does not support the concept. For that reason, the reply virtually HAS to be to point to verses which rebut such a mistaken claim.

It does not. Scripture does not support the concept of SS. Scripture supports both scripture and tradition.

How do you know that any competing "authority" has all the answers...yet you accept one of them (Holy Tradition)? You might have a point here if you were to argue that there is NO WAY of knowing God's will, but you aren't doing, that are you?

Tradition does not compete with Scripture. They work together, along with the Church, to form the 3 legs of authority that I posted at the bottom of my OP.

Same thing, this is not part of the definition of SS, and you are supposedly dealing with SS in this thread.

This is with the issues of the concept of SS, not just the definition. I started the thread with the definition so that we all might start at the same understanding. SS leads to the arguments about authority, by claiming that it is the highest authority.

Not at all. Where'd you pick up such a notion?

It is the logical conclusion in terms of authority. Because there are so many different denominations, all claiming to be true, all following SS, obviously this means they are all right. But ask a Baptist how the Lutherans interpret scripture and they will say wrongly, and visa-versa.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Can you explain how your substitution of 'scripture, tradition, and magisterium' for 'scripture alone' can cleanly pass your self-made 3-point test, without running into the same issues, and without creating a slippery slope?

It is already posted in the links I provided, please read. It is not a "3 point test" but issues with the concept of SS itself.

In terms of circular logic, Scripture points to Tradition, Tradition points to scripture, and it is the Churches responsibility to keep true to them. Jesus made a Church, that Church put the books together and made the Bible, that Bible is Scripture. All 3 point to each-other. SS simply continued to point to itself.

In the Bible, Matthew 16:14-19 Jesus makes his Church, verses I already stated that support both Scripture and Tradition.

And Authority, the Authority came from God, to the Church that He made, which then passed on the Teachings and Traditions of Christ.

 

[SeventyOne]

It is already posted in the links I provided, please read. It is not a "3 point test" but issues with the concept of SS itself.

In terms of circular logic, Scripture points to Tradition, Tradition points to scripture, and it is the Churches responsibility to keep true to them. Jesus made a Church, that Church put the books together and made the Bible, that Bible is Scripture. All 3 point to each-other. SS simply continued to point to itself.

In the Bible, Matthew 16:14-19 Jesus makes his Church, verses I already stated that support both Scripture and Tradition.

And Authority, the Authority came from God, to the Church that He made, which then passed on the Teachings and Traditions of Christ.

I did look at them and it was just a bunch of opinions and proof-texting.

Your reasoning saying scripture points to tradition and tradition to scripture, makes no sense. The only way tradition can point to scripture is if its foundation is in scripture, and therefore an outward manifestation of scripture itself, indicating that in itself, it is not needed as scripture already has it covered. If all such tradition is therefore just a manifestation of scripture, then it's actually an argument for scripture alone being sufficient.

However, if it's an addition to scripture, or implies something scripture doesn't also imply, then is does not point to scripture at all, nor does scripture point to it.

 

[Thursday]

You're reasoning saying scripture points to tradition and tradition to scripture, makes no sense.

Yes it does.

Without tradition we wouldn't even know which books belong in the New Testament.

 

[SeventyOne]

Yes it does.

Without tradition we wouldn't even know which books belong in the New Testament.

God's people, the Jews, new exactly what was God's word and what was not, long before the the OT was ever assembled, or even completed, as the prophets referenced each other occasionally, such as Daniel reading Jeremiah to to find out when the Babylonian captivity would end, and they did so without "tradition". They just knew God's voice when they heard it.
Jesus even affirmed the OT in it's entirety, such as in Luke 11:51, to indicate they got it right.

And without "tradition".

How likely is it that God had to rely on the tradition of man when putting together the NT, rather than also relying on His people to just still know His voice? Not very.

 

[Thursday]

How likely is it that God had to rely on the tradition of man when putting together the NT, rather than also relying on His people to just still know His voice? Not very.

Do you know how the NT books were selected? There was much discussion and disagreement about which books should be included for centuries after Christ.

The books were chosen by the Catholic Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Who told you that God endorses the bible?

Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?

Your argument didn't work before and doesn't work now. Scripture is God's word. Scripture existed the moment the words were spoken/written. You can not usurp any authority because you collated scripture into the Bible.

Without tradition we wouldn't even know which books belong in the New Testament.

Not true. Can you tell me what criteria was used by your church to determine what books belong in the New Testament?

Scripture gave us a guide to test all teachings against scripture.

 

[Thursday]

Your argument didn't work before and doesn't work now. Scripture is God's word.

Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?(Answer: The Catholic Church)

How do you know what is scripture without tradition?

 

[Wolf_Says]

How likely is it that God had to rely on the tradition of man when putting together the NT, rather than also relying on His people to just still know His voice? Not very.

Nobody said the traditions of man. We said Holy Traditions, which are different.

Jesus even affirmed the OT in it's entirety, such as in Luke 11:51, to indicate they got it right.

Yes, in it's entirety. The Septuagint aka Greek Bible. NOT the Hebrew Bible which dismissed the 7 books now called the Apocrypha.

 

[SeventyOne]

Do you know how the NT books were selected? There was much discussion and disagreement about which books should be included for centuries after Christ.

The books were chosen by the Catholic Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I'm aware of the debate and the councils, but I couldn't disagree more with you regarding your interpretation of the circumstances. The Catholic Church didn't "choose" anything.