Sola Scriptura - The Bible and Logic (contra Catholics)

Status
Not open for further replies.

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Speaking of silver tongues how about C.H. Spurgeon? In certain circles he has been labeled the "prince of preachers" and for good reasons.
C H Spurgeon had an overwhelming track record of faithfully preaching the Word in a clear and immediate manner, rather than of using eloquence to twist and deceive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
C H Spurgeon had an overwhelming track record of faithfully preaching the Word in a clear and immediate manner, rather than of using eloquence to twist and deceive.

Eloquence is a good thing. But when it is used in the place of logic and exegesis to lead people away from the Lord it is a very bad thing! No one here is accusing Spurgeon of that.
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Eloquence is a good thing. But when it is used in the place of logic and exegesis to lead people away from the Lord it is a very bad thing! No one here is accusing Spurgeon of that.
Personally I think that people such as Melanchthon and some of the later Puritan and Reformed writers were rather unwise in their way of wanting to follow the style of writing of Aquinas and the Medieval Scholastics: they tried to put together a comprehensive, closed system of appealing logic. Discerning the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus from Scripture - for which there is overwhelming scope for profitable study and encouragement - doesn't work by such Medieval logical methods.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Personally I think that people such as Melanchthon and some of the later Puritan and Reformed writers were rather unwise in their way of wanting to follow the style of writing of Aquinas and the Medieval Scholastics: they tried to put together a comprehensive, closed system of appealing logic. Discerning the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus from Scripture - for which there is overwhelming scope for profitable study and encouragement - doesn't work by such Medieval logical methods.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which Reformed authors do you think were using Medieval logical methods?
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which Reformed authors do you think were using Medieval logical methods?
Not Calvin himself but some of the later Calvinists; Turretin comes to mind; I don't necessarily have a problem with the overall view of the Synod of Dort, but the whole style of logical propositions in the style of Medieval Scholasticism is not food for the soul, in my humble opinion.
 
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,655
Northeast, USA
✟181,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Speaking of silver tongues how about C.H. Spurgeon? In certain circles he has been labeled the "prince of preachers" and for good reasons.
Great example. He was a champion (IMO) at drawing different 'senses' from a particular text. He not only drew out the obvious meaning from verses, but he would often times bring out points which were quite unconventional. Alongside the literal and obvios meaning of a verse, he often saw a figurative or allegorical sense in many parts of the Bible too. For instance, his commentary on Song of Solomon did not emphasize a literal interpretation of romance between two lovers, but he drew out of it an allegory of the relationship between Christ and His church. I believe he was right to recognize manifold purposes for different texts. Some people 'accuse' Spurgeon of preaching the right sermon from the wrong text, but I think they may be missing this important principle of interpretation and application.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which Reformed authors do you think were using Medieval logical methods?

I am curious too, from everything I have read from the Puritans, their devotion to Christ and Scripture seems clear and pure as mountain streams.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tree of Life
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Not Calvin himself but some of the later Calvinists; Turretin comes to mind; I don't necessarily have a problem with the overall view of the Synod of Dort, but the whole style of logical propositions in the style of Medieval Scholasticism is not food for the soul, in my humble opinion.

I have not personally read Turretin so I'll have to take your word for it.
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am curious too, from everything I have read from the Puritans, their devotion to Christ and Scripture seems clear and pure as mountain streams.
One does not doubt their Godliness. In terms of effective ways of communicating the Word, I do struggle with the idea of presenting logical propositions over and over, as not a few of them do.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have not personally read Turretin so I'll have to take your word for it.

I have not either but have read about him at places like the Puritan board and he may be right about Turretin, but I agree it's not necessarily a problem, however it makes for dry reading and extremely difficult comprehension when the mind is wandering and roaming in other directions. lol
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One does not doubt their Godliness. In terms of effective ways of communicating the Word, I do struggle with the idea of presenting logical propositions over and over, as not a few of them do.

That's understandable, what boggles my mind is the amount of truth they were able to communicate in so few words, and yet the massive amount of words they communicated in writing. I also appreciate the time they took to present arguments and respond to counter arguments, the thought put into them, and relevance in all ages.
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's understandable, what boggles my mind is the amount of truth they were able to communicate in so few words, and yet the massive amount of words they communicated in writing. I also appreciate the time they took to present arguments and respond to counter arguments, the thought put into them, and relevance in all ages.
Up to a point, yes. What we need to remember is that logical processes - however ingenious seeming- can go astray.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since I believe that logic is governed by laws and is typically not very flexible, I don't think there's much wiggle room. It's certainly possible to use bad logic and commit logical fallacies to wrongly arrive at what one supposes the Bible implies. This is the essence of false teaching. It can easily be shown to be incorrect by exposing the logical and exegetical flaws:
  1. Exegetical flaw - They got something wrong about what the text plainly says.
  2. Logical flaw - They committed a logical fallacy in getting to what they think the Bible implies.
All false teaching suffers from one or both of these flaws.

I think you have good logic in the op, and let me observe that very often even people that disagree with you or me have good logic also, and at the same time, even have read a scripture well enough.

Instead of logical errors or failure to see the words in a verse, what happens more often is 2 other things.

Often the logic is perfect, but most everyone uses assumptions, usually more than one, and very often including some they are not even aware of -- and it's these assumptions where the real discussion should be instead, in order to aid anyone.

The 2nd common problem, which is very commonplace, happening all the time even, is that people have read some isolated verses without reading that full chapter or book, and thus are able to see the verses as saying something different than what that same person would see if they instead were listening in the sense of fully reading through. That is, from chapter 1, verse 1, listening through the book, in order to hear it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: royal priest
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Up to a point, yes. What we need to remember is that logical processes - however ingenious seeming- can go astray.

True, and also any meaningful communication is impossible without logical processes. It's the combination of logical processes and eloquence that stirs up a logical fire in the soul, logic on fire as it were. For example, reading a devotional like Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" involves both and reasoning and soul stirring emotion, and written in such a way as to be memorable. All good.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Thesis: What the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

Roman Catholics claim that Scripture alone is not sufficient in order to formulate doctrine. The examples they will provide for this are the very famous and ecumenical doctrines of:
  1. The Trinity
  2. The Hypostatic Union (Two Natures of Christ)
These doctrines are incredibly important. They are so important, that one cannot be considered a Christian if they deny these doctrines. But we must admit that explicit formulations of these doctrines are not found in Scripture. And their technical terminology (Trinity, Hypostatic Union) is not found in Scripture either.

"Aha!" say the Catholics. "Sola Scriptura cannot be correct! Scripture does not explicitly teach these doctrines, yet they are necessary for orthodoxy." The Catholic position on this matter is that the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church is necessary in order for these doctrines to be established. They cannot stand on Scripture alone, say the Catholics. The authoritative teaching of the church is also required in order to establish these doctrines.

The problem with this view is that it is hogwarsh in the highest degree.

While these doctrines are not explicitly taught in Scripture, they are certainly implied by Scripture. Take the Trinity as an example. The Bible explicitly teaches:
  1. There is one God
  2. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
  3. These three persons are distinct
So while the Bible does not say "Trinity", nor does it use the technical language of the Nicene Creed, it certainly says enough to imply the formulations of the Trinity. So the Trinity is certainly able to stand on Scripture alone because what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.
Then why are there some Christian denominations that don't see the Trinity in Scripture? Why are there Christian denominations that think those of us who believe the Trinity believe in three Gods, not one?
Also, why was there necessarily a Church Council to discuss the two natures of Christ and to nail down the doctrine, and what the Trinity means?
Example of this Principle in Scripture
How do we know that "what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches"? We know this because the Bible says so. Take a look at how Jesus used the Bible for teaching:

Luke 6:1-5 - On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” 5 And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

In response to the Pharisees' challenge that Jesus was violating the Sabbath, he did not quote Scripture about the Sabbath. Rather, he reminded them of a story about David eating sacred bread. This story does not explicitly say that preserving human life is more important than following rituals. But the story certainly implies that this is the case. Jesus was able to start with Scripture, use logic, and reach logical inferences and deductions about what Scripture teaches.

So it's not just what Scripture explicitly says which is authoritative. What the Bible implies is also equally authoritative.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is unaffected by this Catholic criticism.
It actually is. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium provide context for Scripture. Without Tradition and Magisterium providing context, we wouldn't know what passages mean, such as John 6.
Personally, when someone invites me to a feast (Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, three legs of one stool), I don't say, no thanks, I'll just have a glass of water (Scripture). I study the entire thing.
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
True, and also any meaningful communication is impossible without logical processes. It's the combination of logical processes and eloquence that stirs up a logical fire in the soul, logic on fire as it were. For example, reading a devotional like Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" involves both and reasoning and soul stirring emotion, and written in such a way as to be memorable. All good.
I love Spurgeon's Morning and Evening; but I would also ask: Why should the style of Medieval Scholastics be regarded somehow as a norm for declaring God's Word, rather than by directly appealing to Scripture?
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,902
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then why are there some Christian denominations that don't see the Trinity in Scripture? Why are there Christian denominations that think those of us who believe the Trinity believe in three Gods, not one?
Also, why was there necessarily a Church Council to discuss the two natures of Christ and to nail down the doctrine, and what the Trinity means?

It actually is. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium provide context for Scripture. Without Tradition and Magisterium providing context, we wouldn't know what passages mean, such as John 6.
Personally, when someone invites me to a feast (Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, three legs of one stool), I don't say, no thanks, I'll just have a glass of water (Scripture). I study the entire thing.
There is overwhelming evidence for Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Scripture. The "church" does not stand above Scripture in order supposedly to read things into it.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I love Spurgeon's Morning and Evening; but I would also ask: Why should the style of Medieval Scholastics be regarded somehow as a norm for declaring God's Word, rather than by directly appealing to Scripture?

Oh I agree, and I think our styles are rooted in personality and influences.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Take the Trinity as an example. The Bible explicitly teaches:
  1. There is one God
  2. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
  3. These three persons are distinct
So while the Bible does not say "Trinity", nor does it use the technical language of the Nicene Creed, it certainly says enough to imply the formulations of the Trinity. So the Trinity is certainly able to stand on Scripture alone because what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

Or maybe you have that backwards.

Trinity is the man-made term applied to the Bible teaching of "One God in three Persons". The Bible does teach "one God" and also explicitly shows that God is "Three Persons" but it does not say the man-made term "Trinity" is the way to speak of them. Whose man-made term you wish to use -- is up to you as long as it still holds to the actual Bible detail of "one God in three Persons".

Implications can be weak or strong depending on how the reader chooses to drawn inferences.

But that is not true of the explicit statements about "one God" and about "Three Persons"
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.