Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[GDL]

The Bible tell us The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

cc: @Ain't Zwinglian

FWIW: re: 1Tim3:15:

• In context from 1Tim3:14, Paul is writing (what will also become Scripture for us - and if Scripture, then also God-breathed?)
• Some beginning construction analogy since "pillar/support" is mentioned; Paul is part of the foundation on which the House/Household of God - Christ's Ekklesia - Christ's assembled people - is built (Eph2:20)
• So, we have part of the foundation - Paul - writing what has become Scripture
• So, Scripture is telling us how to behave in the Household of God - Christ's Ekklesia - which makes Scripture the authority over God's People.
• Then we have all the rest of the construction analogy to deal with
• Then we have the word "ekklesia" to deal with - and its meaning is [His] assembly of people - so then we have to get into all the disagreements about Rome
• Then, since there are at least 33 ways we can translate "of" per this Greek phrase "of the truth" - there's quite a bit of construction analogy to be taken into consideration re: what this phrase is telling us. For example:
  • Since Christ is the Truth and the chief cornerstone of the foundation
    • Does the Truth first support the pillar/support of the Truth? Does Christ uphold us or do we uphold Christ?

There's a lot to consider here, as usual.

If anything, Christ is the authority, His written Word is His authority, Paul is part of His Foundation (foundational authority). and Scripture is telling us - Christ's People - how to behave in His assembly - God's House(hold). Scripture is the authority here.

 

[Fidelibus]

By you believing that your interpretation of scripture is correct, you are making YOURSELF an infallible authority.

This is very true CC. It's called being "fallible in theory, but infallible in practice." This seems to be the very common practice among Protestants.


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Clare73]

FWIW: re: 1Tim3:15:

• In context from 1Tim3:14, Paul is writing (what will also become Scripture for us - and if Scripture, then also God-breathed?)
• Some beginning construction analogy since "pillar/support" is mentioned; Paul is part of the foundation on which the House/Household of God - Christ's Ekklesia - Christ's assembled people - is built (Eph2:20)
• So, we have part of the foundation - Paul - writing what has become Scripture
• So, Scripture is telling us how to behave in the Household of God - Christ's Ekklesia - which makes Scripture the authority over God's People.
• Then we have all the rest of the construction analogy to deal with
• Then we have the word "ekklesia" to deal with - and its meaning is [His] assembly of people - so then we have to get into all the disagreements about Rome

Yes, ek-klesia is the "called-out assembly," not some particular small group of the assembly.

• Then, since there are at least 33 ways we can translate "of" per this Greek phrase "of the truth" - there's quite a bit of construction analogy to be taken into consideration re: what this phrase is telling us. For example:
• Since Christ is the Truth and the chief cornerstone of the foundation
  • Does the Truth first support the pillar/support of the Truth? Does Christ uphold us or do we uphold Christ?

Yep. . .the cornerstone being the most important part of the building.
The weight of the total structure rested on this stone, which, if removed, would collapse the whole structure.
It was also the key to keeping the walls straight. The builders would take sightings along the edges of the cornerstone.
If the cornerstone was set properly, they knew that all the other corners of the building would be at the correct angles as well.

And Jesus said, "Did you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone'" (Mt 21:42).

There's a lot to consider here, as usual.

A working knowledge of Western orthodox Christian doctrine is quite beneficial in this regard.
Precious little is contra-Biblical, and only a few are extra-Biblical.

If anything, Christ is the authority, His written Word is His authority, Paul is part of His Foundation (foundational authority). and Scripture is telling us - Christ's People - how to behave in His assembly - God's House(hold). Scripture is the authority here.

 

[concretecamper]

If anything, Christ is the authority, His written Word is His authority, Paul is part of His Foundation (foundational authority). and Scripture is telling us - Christ's People - how to behave in His assembly - God's House(hold). Scripture is the authority here.

Christ is the Authority. He gave His authority to the Church. He and His Church are one. No mental gymnastics required to figure it out.

Twisting 1 Tim 3:15 to say it means scripture is the Authority requires gymnastics never seen before and is quite nonsensical.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, ek-klesia is the "called-out assembly," not some particular small group of the assembly.

Yep. . .the cornerstone being the most important part of the building.
The weight of the total structure rested on this stone, which, if removed, would collapse the whole structure.
It was also the key to keeping the walls straight. The builders would take sightings along the edges of the cornerstone.
If the cornerstone was set properly, they knew that all the other corners of the building would be at the correct angles as well.
And Jesus said, "Did you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone'" (Mt 21:42).

Christ is the Authority. He gave His authority to the Church. He and His Church are one.

That church being his body and bride, in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:28-32) which includes all the born again.

No mental gymnastics required to figure it out.

Twisting 1 Tim 3:15 to say it means scripture is the Authority requires gymnastics never seen before and is quite nonsensical.

Agreed. . .you have me confused with someone else.

 

[concretecamper]

which includes all the born again.

All Baptized.

Agreed. . .you have me confused with someone else

If the shoe fits....

 

[Clare73]

All Baptized.

Baptism does not guarantee new birth. . .the new birth is a sovereign act (neither dependent on, nor governed by, any act of man) of the Holy Spirit, who is as unaccountable as the wind, in giving the new birth to whom he pleases to give it (Jn 3:5-8).

If the shoe fits....

That works. . .

 

[concretecamper]

Baptism does not guarantee new birth. . .the new birth is a sovereign act (neither dependent on, nor governed by, any act of man) of the Holy Spirit, who is as unaccountable as the wind, in giving the new birth to whom he pleases to give it (Jn 3:5-8).

As scripture confirms, Baptism incorporates one not His Body. Baptism is the true meaning of born again

 

[The Liturgist]

God has magnified His Word “above” all His name

The problem with that quote is that the Word of God is literally Jesus Christ (John 1:1-17) and all of Scripture is inspired words about the Word, as we find in the Resurrection Narrative of the Gospel of Luke, where the Holy Apostle Cleophas and another unnamed disciple encounter our Lord on the road to Emmaus, and he shows them how all Scripture (at the time, limited to what we now call the Old Testament) is about Him, before they recognize Him as the risen Son and Word of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in the breaking of bread, which is to say, the Eucharist (Luke 24:25-35). This experience is then repeated when Christ appears before all the Eleven unexpectedly and dines with them, and then Ascends into Heaven. Thus Scripture is a verbal icon of the Word, the Word of the Word, and I would note that all references to the Word potentially, and probably actually, refer to Christ first, and the Scriptures secondarily, for the Bible frequently refers to itself using words that cannot be confused with the identity of Christ, such as Scripture, or the Law and Prophets.

 

[GDL]

Christ is the Authority. He gave His authority to the Church. He and His Church are one. No mental gymnastics required to figure it out.

Twisting 1 Tim 3:15 to say it means scripture is the Authority requires gymnastics never seen before and is quite nonsensical.

Sorry, but you're imbedded in a system that's skewing your read of Scripture.

1. We have (and are) a group called the Household of God / Christ's Ekklesia
2. Christ has His Apostle Paul tell His Ekklesia what to do.
3. That clearly makes what Paul tells us to do = Christ > Paul/Scripture > God's Household/Christ's Ekklesia
4. Authority Structure = Christ (the Head of His Ekklesia - Eph1:22; Eph5:23; Col1:18) > Christ's Word (Scripture) (1Cor14:37) > Christ's People (His Body, His Assembly)

The gymnastics are clearly on your end and any system you belong to that tells you Christ / His Word is not the ultimate authority is perverted (nonsensical is too weak a term).

If you'd like to take this up from the construction analogy or the detailed language analysis of the verse, let's do so. But kindly be prepared to lose your personal attacks which actually make you lose the argument even at its first step.

The flow of Truth is from the Foundation of Christ & Scripture up through the Pillar/Support and then up through whatever is built from there. The Foundation supports the Pillar which supports the rest of the structure above it. If the foundation is sand, the structure collapses (Matt7:26-27). If the Pillar is made of poor materials, then it will hold up nothing (1Cor3:11-18).

For someone who has "concrete" in his ID, you might want to consider the lessons taught by the Master Builder (1Cor3:10) on behalf of the Master (Mark13:1-2; Heb11:10). That's my little piece of ad hominem back to you. Care to talk Scripture based upon Scripture instead of nonsense taught by whomever wherever?

 

[concretecamper]

Sorry, but you're imbedded in a system that's skewing your read of Scripture.

Haha, close to 2,000 years of Tradition vs. self promoting infallible declarations which have only been popular for the past 100 years. I'll stick where I am at.

The context of 1Tim 3:15 is clearly the Church. Jesus gave His Church the Authority, that is scriptural. Jesus commissioned His Church to teach, that is scriptural. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, that is scriptural. I believe Jesus and His promises. That is why the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Not because of any man, but because what He said and promised.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

That's my little piece of ad hominem back to you. Care to talk Scripture based upon Scripture instead of nonsense taught by whomever wherever?

That's rich! ....whomever....wherever.

 

[GDL]

Haha, close to 2,000 years of Tradition vs. self promoting infallible declarations which have only been popular for the past 100 years. I'll stick where I am at.

The context of 1Tim 3:15 is clearly the Church. Jesus gave His Church the Authority, that is scriptural. Jesus commissioned His Church to teach, that is scriptural. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, that is scriptural. I believe Jesus and His promises. That is why the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Not because of any man, but because what He said and promised.

Would we expect any other response than tradition trumps Scripture and the Spirit overrides the Word thinkers? This is why some are so weak in Scripture - the authority has been shifted from Christ - the only Foundation and Head of HIS Ekklesia - to some authority-grabbers who must weaken His Word to weaken & usurp His absolute authority, as if this can be done. It all plays out in the end, and we've all been allotted our time here to make our decisions.

The problem is once the builders have built, the judgment Paul spoke of in 1Cor3 that will test what was built on the Only Foundation will prove the wood, grass & straw some built their pillars out of. And that's not the worst of the judgements spoken of. If Christ is not a person's authority, then that person is not in Christ no matter how many times they sat in the pews.

You'd do better to stay away from explaining what Scripture says and means and just stick to preaching to your choir. Your presuppositions are a house of paper cards built on sand and your interpretation is pure eisegesis.

 

[GDL]

That's rich! ....whomever....wherever.

Per the following, though understanding, I was sad to see you depart:

Now who is getting snippy. This conversation is over.

But I'm sure I will do the same at some point.

 

[concretecamper]

Would we expect any other response than tradition trumps Scripture and the Spirit overrides the Word thinkers?

Scripture was derived from Tradition, so expect what you will.

This is why some are so weak in Scripture - the authority has been shifted from Christ - the only Foundation and Head of HIS Ekklesia - to some authority-grabbers who must weaken His Word to weaken & usurp His absolute authority, as if this can be done. It all plays out in the end, and we've all been allotted our time here to make our decisions.

Looks like you are the authority grabber since you insist YOUR interpretation of scripture is infallible. I'll stick with the Church Chrost founded rather than follow the opinion of some self appointed "expert"

The problem is once the builders have built, the judgment Paul spoke of in 1Cor3 that will test what was built on the Only Foundation will prove the wood, grass & straw some built their pillars out of. And that's not the worst of the judgements spoken of. If Christ is not a person's authority, then that person is not in Christ no matter how many times they sat in the pews.

Has no relevance to the question at hand.

You'd do better to stay away from explaining what Scripture says and means and just stick to preaching to your choir. Your presuppositions are a house of paper cards built on sand and your interpretation is pure eisegesis.

A self appointed "Expert" vs close to 2,000 years of His Church's Tradition...no contest

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Per the following, though understanding, I was sad to see you depart:

But I'm sure I will do the same at some point.

CC is going to whittle you down to two and only two catagories for his argumentation. Fallible and Infallible. As soon as he used this distinction on me, I cut the conversation. I still think the stronger argument is Scripture as GOD BREATHED not the church as interpreted by the Papacy or Magisterium. If you noticed, CC never commented on this line of reasoning.

As I recall, C. Michael Patton over at Credo House has an excellent series on this subject matter.

In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part One - Authority Across the Spectrum - Credo House Ministries

“If it ain’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it.” Have you ever heard said that? How about this one: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” You might have that bumper sticker. Why not? Doesn’t this represent the glory of the Protestant Reformation’s elevation of Scripture to a...

credohouse.org

It is a ten part series, but the links are broken to all ten parts and the diagrams didn't work. He comes from a Baptist background. It is worth studying you can find the links on his site. It has been ten years since I used his materials. Interesting stuff.





.

 

[GDL]

Scripture was derived from Tradition, so expect what you will.

That would be the Scripture that speaks against men's traditions, correct (Mark7:8; Col2:8)? Of course, it's correct, but that's because Scripture says it is.

Looks like you are the authority grabber since you insist YOUR interpretation of scripture is infallible. I'll stick with the Church Chrost founded rather than follow the opinion of some self appointed "expert"

In a sense I guess, just like any fallible man or men - whomever, wherever, whenever - who read & interpret Scripture like these noble-minded people (Acts17:11) did. The difference between you and me is you're using your self-appointed expertise to select & let others be your experts, whether they be right or wrong, which is fallibility choosing to follow fallibility.

I'm relying on God's Word and Spirit as the only Expert and thereby getting as close as possible to letting infallibility lead and guide and teach and train me. I added some fairly extensive training in Biblical Greek and some Hebrew to get even a little closer to the Expert's Writings. Seems I'm possibly putting forth some effort to be a little closer to the only Foundation than you are.

It's pretty simple. I've chose to use my authority to submit to God's absolute authority. You've chose to use your authority to submit to layers of men and traditions. You've simply shifted from ad hominem to straw men. Please don't try to suggest otherwise.

Has no relevance to the question at hand.

Of course, you'd say this since you don't rely on Scripture but then try to tell others what Scripture says and means. You can't even correctly tell us what all the context of the verse under discussion actually speaks of.

A self appointed "Expert" vs close to 2,000 years of His Church's Tradition...no contest

Says a self-appointed expert who has fallibly determined to go along with the fallible concept of fallible men that tradition trumps Scripture. If I'm going to fail, then I'm going to accept my responsibility having attempted to get as close as I can to Him by His Spirit apart from the layers of men, different traditions of men, human hidden agendas of men, etc. When you fail it'll include shifting blame to 2,000 years of tradition and layers of men who started & perpetuated them.

There's only one infallible Expert. Success will come to those who learned to know Him and willingly & faithfully did His will. You want Rome to lead you in that. I don't. Winners of whatever contest there is will not be determined by either of us. Nor will the determination be made by those you're relying on.

 

[GDL]

CC is going to whittle you down to two and only two catagories for his argumentation. Fallible and Infallible. As soon as he used this distinction on me, I cut the conversation. I still think the stronger argument is Scripture as GOD BREATHED not the church as interpreted by the Papacy or Magisterium. If you noticed, CC never commented on this line of reasoning.

As I recall, C. Michael Patton over at Credo House has an excellent series on this subject matter.

In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part One - Authority Across the Spectrum - Credo House Ministries

“If it ain’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it.” Have you ever heard said that? How about this one: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” You might have that bumper sticker. Why not? Doesn’t this represent the glory of the Protestant Reformation’s elevation of Scripture to a...

credohouse.org

It is a ten part series, but the links are broken to all ten parts and the diagrams didn't work. He comes from a Baptist background. It is worth studying you can find the links on his site. It has been ten years since I used his materials. Interesting stuff.
.

Confirmed. Like you, I simply walk away at some point. At least you and I know Who is infallible and who isn't. I did notice what you mention. You and I both know these discussions with Romanists never resolve anything which is not a unique phenomenon for these forums no matter what camp the posters, including us, are from. I simply saw an absurd eisegesis of Scripture and chimed in.

Thanks for the linked media.

 

[concretecamper]

That would be the Scripture that speaks against men's traditions, correct (Mark7:8; Col2:8)? Of course, it's correct, but that's because Scripture says it is.

Such as Sola Scriptura, it looks like you are starting to get it.

In a sense I guess, just like any fallible man or men - whomever, wherever, whenever - who read & interpret Scripture like these noble-minded people (Acts17:11) did. The difference between you and me is you're using your self-appointed expertise to select & let others be your experts, whether they be right or wrong, which is fallibility choosing to follow fallibility.

Jesus gave authority to His Church and promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide it. Unless you can prove to us all that you were given the same authority and promises, take a back seat please.

It's pretty simple. I've chose to use my authority to submit to God's absolute authority. You've chose to use your authority to submit to layers of men and traditions. You've simply shifted from ad hominem to straw men. Please don't try to suggest otherwise.

According to Scripture, Jesus and His Church are One and is guided by the Holy Spirit. So that is where I place my trust.

Says a self-appointed expert who has fallibly determined to go along with the fallible concept of fallible men that tradition trumps Scripture. If I'm going to fail, then I'm going to accept my responsibility having attempted to get as close as I can to Him by His Spirit apart from the layers of men, different traditions of men, human hidden agendas of men, etc. When you fail it'll include shifting blame to 2,000 years of tradition and layers of men who started & perpetuated them.

That is your choice. Just don't get all sideways because someone calls your error out.

There's only one infallible Expert.

That would be God. And God bestowed authority and the gift of His Holy Spirit on His Church.

 

[concretecamper]

Confirmed. Like you, I simply walk away at some point. At least you and I know Who is infallible and who isn't. I did notice what you mention. You and I both know these discussions with Romanists never resolve anything which is not a unique phenomenon for these forums no matter what camp the posters, including us, are from. I simply saw an absurd eisegesis of Scripture and chimed in.

You're starting to get it. Although I enjoyed the pillow talk between you two, You ain't gonna convince me, and I ain't gonna convince you.

All I am hoping for is that someone sees that you are not an infallible interpreter of scripture and as such cannot be trusted to teach about what scripture says. And they then start to search for the Truth and hopefully finds it in His Church.