Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

[BobRyan]

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

[There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.[/QUOTE]

The error there - is that the entire argument above relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting yourself" relying on extreme inference alone.

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!

 

[BobRyan]

Notice how the sola scriptura method is used by Christ to utterly hammer man-made-tradition of the magisterium of His day.

Mark 7:6-13
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - this text should not exist! -- which is why the argument against it - does not survive the text.

 

[JohnRabbit]

well said!

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks - I wanted this at the top of one of the many sola scriptura threads - so it is easy for future reference

And of course there are those who oppose the sola scriptura evidence we see in the OP - and would prefer to imagine that nothing of the sort even exists - but rather all there is - is philosophical argument for sola scriptura which is supposedly easy to disprove...

For example.

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?

 

[BobRyan]

I for one prefer the actual Bible.

 

[Jipsah]

Thanks - I wanted this at the top of one of the many sola scriptura threads

This is pretty hysterical considering that some of the most dearly held SDA doctrines have no basis in Scripture at all.

Tell us where you find the Scripture that says that our Lord has been conducting Investigative Judgement since 1844.

And you want to babble about Sola Scriptura? <ROFL>

 

[BobRyan]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

looks like sola scriptura
talks like sola scriptura
walks like sola scriptura

...

is sola scriptura

 

[anna ~ grace]

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

The error there - is that the entire argument above relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting yourself" relying on extreme inference alone.

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!

But the point is a good one. What constitutes Scripture, and what is the Canon? And what are we basing our answers on? Do we have answers for that?

And where do we look to for those answers, and who decides what is Scripture, and how do they decide that? Some Christian groups reject Paul's epistles. Some wish to include Enoch as Scripture. Once we establish a Canon, who decides what is literal vs. spiritual / metaphor? Who decides theology, ritual, neccesary things and unnecessary things? Must a Christian keep the Law of Moses? CF is so rife with discussion of these topics that I think it should be deeply, deeply clear that while Sola Scriptura might seem safe and a good idea, that it is impractical, and does not work.

 

[BobRyan]

And you want to babble about Sola Scriptura? <ROFL>

hint: -- the title of this thread

 

[BobRyan]

Tell us where you find the Scripture that says that our Lord has been conducting Investigative Judgement since 1844.

Daniel 7 "judgment passed in favor of the saints" during the event where "the court sits and the books are opened"

And then there is Romans 2:4-16.

But that is another thread -- which of course I would be glad to participate in since it is one of my favorite Bible subjects.

 

[prodromos]

So, Sola Old Testament arguments.

 

[BobRyan]

But the point is a good one. What constitutes Scripture, and what is the Canon? And what are we basing our answers on? Do we have answers for that?

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

You seem to be asking how they knew what scripture was... is that correct. Notice how often the NT text talks about "scripture".

And where do we look to for those answers, and who decides what is Scripture,

Indeed. Yet Luke's readers knew the term and understood the phrase -- "He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

As Josephus also argues in his day that the Canon of scripture had not changed for over 400 years
.

I think it should be deeply, deeply clear that while Sola Scriptura might seem safe and a good idea, that it is impractical, and does not work.

a. There is no dispute about the NT text - that is abundantly clear -- both Catholics and Protestants have no quarrel on that point.
b. Luke's readers had no quarrel about the rest of the Bible - that which was not what we call the NT ...
Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

So, Sola Old Testament arguments.

Sola Scriptura.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light..

Acts 17:11 -- sola scriptura from "all of scripture" known and accepted at that time - a canon that even Josephus admits to -

Luke says Christ also used that model --

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

You seem to be asking how they knew what scripture was... is that correct. Notice how often the NT text talks about "scripture".



Indeed. Yet Luke's readers knew the term and understood the phrase -- "He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

As Josephus also argues in his day that the Canon of scripture had not changed for over 400 years
.


a. There is no dispute about the NT text - that is abundantly clear -- both Catholics and Protestants have no quarrel on that point.
b. Luke's readers had no quarrel about the rest of the Bible - that which was not what we call the NT ...
Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

But again, Sir, how do we determine what is meant by "Scripture"? How do we know Luke's Gospel counts as Scripture? How do we know of its existence at all? Well, every believer in Christ has access to Scripture because it has been handed down, not because each of us determines for him or herself what constitutes Christian Scripture (hopefully!).

We still must confront history, though, at least if we want to delve into this topic. Who handed Scripture down? Who decided what Scripture meant, when, and for what reasons?

 

[prodromos]

Sola Scriptura.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light..

Acts 17:11 -- sola scriptura from "all of scripture" known and accepted at that time - a canon that even Josephus admits to -

Luke says Christ also used that model --

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

And these all refer to the Old Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

And these all refer to the Old Testament.

Which is "Scripture" according to the Bible.. This is the easy part.

Sola scriptura was true in Isaiah 8... before there was a NT.

Sola scriptura was used by Christ in Luke 24 ... before there was Acts.

Sola Scriptura was used in Acts 17:11 ... before there was the book of Revelation.

The principle never changes.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

The article above goes into more depth, and uses Scripture to do so.

 

[BobRyan]

But the point is a good one. What constitutes Scripture, and what is the Canon? And what are we basing our answers on? Do we have answers for that?

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

You seem to be asking how they knew what scripture was... is that correct. Notice how often the NT text talks about "scripture".

And where do we look to for those answers, and who decides what is Scripture,

Indeed. Yet Luke's readers knew the term and understood the phrase -- "He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

As Josephus also argues in his day that the Canon of scripture had not changed for over 400 years
.

I think it should be deeply, deeply clear that while Sola Scriptura might seem safe and a good idea, that it is impractical, and does not work.

a. There is no dispute about the NT text - that is abundantly clear -- both Catholics and Protestants have no quarrel on that point.
b. Luke's readers had no quarrel about the rest of the Bible - that which was not what we call the NT ...
Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

But again, Sir, how do we determine what is meant by "Scripture"? How do we know Luke's Gospel counts as Scripture?

The "debatable" part of the discussion was already solved by the time of Christ's teaching in Luke 24.

The non-debatable part - then is "what about the NT" and as you point out "what about Luke" how can we know that Luke is scripture?

1. Nobody reading Luke's letter in the NT was telling themselves "lets wait 200 or 300 years until someone tells us what to read as NT scripture". We both agree on that point. And clearly the term "all of scripture" as used in Luke 24 was not at all confusing to his readers.

2. Nobody today proposes any confusion at all about the NT - not Protestants and not Catholics --proof: they both agree when it comes to the NT.

3. Paul himself says this (without any church tradition at all to guide him) -
1 Thess 2
11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, 12 encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. 13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

So then - no confusion on this point in the first century for NT saints.

Your proposal seems to be that "it got more confusing later " -- is that right??

 

[BobRyan]

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

The article above goes into more depth, and uses Scripture to do so.

I was thinking the same thing about these Bible texts --

======================================

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light..

Acts 17:11 -- sola scriptura from "all of scripture" known and accepted at that time - a canon that even Josephus admits to -

Luke says Christ also used that model --

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"

Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"
===========================

Your link said this ...

"The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition." The teaching authority or "Magisterium" of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith"

Col 2
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Mark 7
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

===========================

My argument is not that just because something is church tradition - it must therefore be doctrinal error - but it could be ... only testing it against the Bible would tell you for sure.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Your proposal seems to be that "it got more confusing later " -- is that right??

Not quite, Sir. My point is that we are referring to and referencing Scripture from the point of view of 21st Century Christians who can hold and read physical Bibles. We can both use the term "Scripture", and we know what we both mean.

But understanding what the Scriptures are, how to identify them, how they came to be, how to interpret them, what they mean, and how we know which texts they are takes a lot more than simply pointing to printed text in our actual Bibles.

It takes quite a bit more than that, and realizing that we have a text called Scripture that has been handed down to us as such is part of unraveling how and why Sola Scriptura makes no sense.

I agree that it might seem at first like an air-tight position, but taking into account the questions of "what is scripture and how do we know this?" is important. So is the reality that individual interpretation of Scripture ultimately leads to disunity and chaos.