Sola Scriptura - The Bible and Logic (contra Catholics)

Halbhh · Mar 7, 2018

faroukfarouk said:
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.

Quite an accolade. I will have to read some of his sermons now. Do you have any recommendation/link?

faroukfarouk · Mar 7, 2018

Halbhh said:
Quite an accolade. I will have to read some of his sermons now. Do you have any recommendation/link?

If you google 'Spurgeon Archive', there should be a lot of material there.

Tree of Life · Mar 7, 2018

Halbhh said:
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.

I agree. Hidden assumptions are an issue. But I think that this can be understood as the logical fallacy of begging the question - or IOW assuming what you're trying to prove.

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.

I think that this is an exegetical problem. They're not seeing enough Scripture to rightly understand the little part they are seeing. The solution is to read more Scripture.

Tree of Life · Mar 7, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Then why are there some Christian denominations that don't see the Trinity in Scripture?

There are no Christian denominations that deny the Trinity. There are Bible-influenced cults who call themselves Christians and deny the Trinity. Perhaps you're referring to them. Why do they exist? Because they've failed to understand Scripture with its logical implications. This has been occurring since the dawn of time. This is why Adam and Eve apostatized.

Why are there Christian denominations that think those of us who believe the Trinity believe in three Gods, not one?

Click to expand...

Same as above.

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?

Click to expand...

Church counsels are real helpful. Many minds can come together to try to understand Scripture and its logical implications.

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.

This is an assertion, not an argument. Could you argue for the truth of this assertion?

Tree of Life · Mar 7, 2018

BobRyan said:
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"

Sadly, the Bible does not use the term "three persons" or even the term "persons". So these are also man made terms that you're using to formulate Scripture doctrines.

Halbhh · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
I agree. Hidden assumptions are an issue. But I think that this can be understood as the logical fallacy of begging the question - or IOW assuming what you're trying to prove.

I think that this is an exegetical problem. They're not seeing enough Scripture to rightly understand the little part they are seeing. The solution is to read more Scripture.

Agree. I do suggest we avoid using some old phrasings like 'begging the question' unless we are being pointedly friendly in a very obvious way, because somewhere else on some other day on the internet, a given person has already been lambasted by some unkind person in some personal way, and such words/phrases as 'begging the question' or 'fallacy', etc., have thus taken on an emotional baggage for them, become associated to an animus. So I don't even want to seem to suggest a person has made a logic error using a familiar phrasing now. I want to instead talk about that very part itself or ask a question, being sure they can know I'm friendly.

thesunisout · Mar 7, 2018

The scripture never says the words "substitutionary atonement" yet the doctrine is clear from scripture, and it is the same with the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. The claims of ambiguity come from those who deny the authority of scripture or the teachings themselves.

Root of Jesse · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
There are no Christian denominations that deny the Trinity. There are Bible-influenced cults who call themselves Christians and deny the Trinity. Perhaps you're referring to them. Why do they exist? Because they've failed to understand Scripture with its logical implications. This has been occurring since the dawn of time. This is why Adam and Eve apostatized.

Same as above.

Actually, not. There are groups of Christians who deny the Trinity. Who are you to judge that they are not Christians? Adam and Eve didn't apostatize. God gave them free will, and they chose themselves rather than God.

Church counsels are real helpful. Many minds can come together to try to understand Scripture and its logical implications.

This is an assertion, not an argument. Could you argue for the truth of this assertion?

Sure. Jesus says, in John 6, that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Tradition and Magisterium tells us that this is to be taken literally. Toss out Tradition and Magisterium, and you can declare that Jesus was speaking figuratively. Tradition and Magisterium here comes from those who learned from the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them. Context.

Unofficial Reverand Alex · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
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.

One of the most dangerous fallouts of the Protestant Revolution was the loss of the hierarchy; with no overseeing papacy or council of bishops, no official source for deciding Church teachings, the teachings of the new denominations are at the mercy of whoever feels qualified enough to glean the meaning from an incomplete Bible. As I have added emphasis in your post, deciding what is the best interpretation of the Bible is really dependant on however the particular person decides to interpret it. People have different rules of logic; any political debate will highlight that. With no governing authority, people trying to learn about the Bible from preachers are at the mercy of preachers that can have wildly different educations, as opposed to a Pope or Bishop concil that has an unbroken chain of succession directly from the Apostles, with strict observance of the tradition carried through.
Didn't the Bible say we don't need teachers, anyway? "But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ." --1 John 2:27
Seems like Sola Scriptura tells me that all I need is a Bible--not even that much, I should just KNOW these things. If that was true, then wouldn't we only have 1 denomination? Of course the Holy Spirit is guiding us all--but much more than the Holy Spirit is guiding us, and that's why the Christian church has split into an unfathomable amount of directions!
And the man who wrote this passage...he was taught by Jesus, was he not? And I'm sure there were discussions amongst him and other Christians. I guess all of Paul's trips were pretty silly, if they didn't need teachers, either.
Yes, I'm reading way too far into this verse. But who's to stop me, if all I have is my own logic?

Tree of Life said:
Eloquent speakers can be a danger because they can commit logical sleight of hand. They lead you to a conclusion through eloquence or anecdote rather than through logic. This is immoral. Many are at the mercy of eloquent speakers because they don't have their powers of discernment trained.

But someone trained in discernment and logic can, by God's grace, cut down the false teaching - however adorned it is by eloquence.

Who trains you in discernment & logic? The teacher you don't need?

Tree of Life · Mar 7, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Actually, not. There are groups of Christians who deny the Trinity. Who are you to judge that they are not Christians?

Well I suppose you don't have to take my word for it. But in my estimation, in rejecting any part of the Apostles' Creed - Rule of Faith - one disqualifies themselves from being called "Christian".

Sure. Jesus says, in John 6, that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Tradition and Magisterium tells us that this is to be taken literally. Toss out Tradition and Magisterium, and you can declare that Jesus was speaking figuratively. Tradition and Magisterium here comes from those who learned from the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them. Context.

This would appear to be begging the question. You're assuming that your church's interpretation is correct, then saying that your church was necessary for arriving at your church's interpretation, therefore your church's interpretation is necessary.

This is not persuasive to me. If you can demonstrate from the Bible that transubstantiation it true, then that's one thing. But if this cannot be demonstrated from the Bible then it cannot be considered an infallible doctrine.

Halbhh · Mar 7, 2018

thesunisout said:
The scripture never says the words "substitutionary atonement" yet the doctrine is clear from scripture, and it is the same with the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. The claims of ambiguity come from those who deny the authority of scripture or the teachings themselves.

I think of this as Romans 3:25, I mean that's the verse that comes to mind when I see "substitutionary atonement". But, since Christ Himself had quoted from Hosea 6:6, because of that, several years ago when I encountered Romans 3:25 again, I followed the urge to click on the individual verse to read all the major translations, as at Biblehub:
Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
And there I saw the Young's Literal Translation, which I knew from often seeing the Young's being useful for various verses might be a good rendering.
Then commentaries can say stuff like "There is a remarkable use of the same Greek word in the LXX. version of the Old Testament to express the mercy-seat, i.e., the lid or covering of the ark which was sprinkled by the high priest with the blood of the victim on the Day of Atonement. Some have thought that there is a reference to this here. Christ is the mercy-seat of the New Covenant. " (Ellicott's) But....I can already see this is a very good moment to remember the concept of mystery. Like in Isaiah chapter 55, we are not able to know all of God's thoughts, nor encompass them, that He is simply above us, more than we can know. In other words, even if we can say some true things He has given us, that's not the same as understanding all about it. That's a good caution I'm thinking. We have to then be cautious to avoid going too far with what we do know, because there are things of God which as in Isaiah 55 are simply higher. So, I'm thinking, it's always coming back to a strong emphasis then on the basic principles, like how love is more crucially important, like in 1 Cor 13. It's the fix for the problem(s).

Tree of Life · Mar 7, 2018

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
One of the most dangerous fallouts of the Protestant Revolution was the loss of the hierarchy; with no overseeing papacy or council of bishops, no official source for deciding Church teachings, the teachings of the new denominations are at the mercy of whoever feels qualified enough to glean the meaning from an incomplete Bible. As I have added emphasis in your post, deciding what is the best interpretation of the Bible is really dependant on however the particular person decides to interpret it.

A rejection of the papacy and Catholic hierarchy does not mean that there is then no hierarchy. There's all kinds of forms of protestant church government. Indeed the Bible requires for there to be church government. There was church government before the rise of the primacy of Rome in the fifth century and there is church government in protestant churches today.

People have different rules of logic; any political debate will highlight that.

Rules of logic are not subjective. They're like laws of nature. People can violate them, but this would lead to erroneous conclusions.

With no governing authority, people trying to learn about the Bible from preachers are at the mercy of preachers that can have wildly different educations, as opposed to a Pope or Bishop concil that has an unbroken chain of succession directly from the Apostles, with strict observance of the tradition carried through.

A physical chain of succession is not what matters. What matters is whether or not a teacher is teaching what the apostles taught. In the time of the Reformation, the Roman Church had abandoned the apostles' teaching so God raised up ministers outside of its structure in order to carry on the teaching of the apostles.

Didn't the Bible say we don't need teachers, anyway? "But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ." --1 John 2:27
Seems like Sola Scriptura tells me that all I need is a Bible--not even that much, I should just KNOW these things.

No. This is a misreading of Scripture. The Bible affirms the office of pastor and teacher.

If that was true, then wouldn't we only have 1 denomination? Of course the Holy Spirit is guiding us all--but much more than the Holy Spirit is guiding us, and that's why the Christian church has split into an unfathomable amount of directions!

No. The fact that the Holy Spirit guides the church and that the church will prevail over the gates of hell does not necessarily imply that the church will have a perfect visible unity on earth - even if this is what Jesus prayed for. One day there will be perfect visible unity, but today we live in a fallen world with divisions. This was happening even in the time of the apostles (1 Corinthians 1).

Who trains you in discernment & logic? The teacher you don't need?

I believe we need teachers because the Bible says we need teachers.

BobRyan · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
Sadly, the Bible does not use the term "three persons" or even the term "persons". So these are also man made terms that you're using to formulate Scripture doctrines.

it is not like the reader has to appeal to calculus or an eastern mystic to "notice" that there are three persons being listed in Matthew 28:19

By contrast.. .Purgatory, Indulgences, Prayers to the dead, none of that in the Bible to be "observed" by the reader at all.

Deut 6:5 "God is one" -- we see that in the text.. no eastern mystic needed.
Matthew 28:19 we see three persons listed in the text... no eastern mystic needed.

The point is that some details are "seen in the text" as it reads. One may organize it or slap a label on it for short hand. But that is not the same as simply making stuff up using extreme inference.

icxn · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
So far there's no RCC or EO voices in this thread yet. Batter-up!

So you have a bat (logic) and the ball (scriptures) and lets say you have skills (sharp mind), is that enough to play and win the game (salvation)? What is your playing field and what are the bases? What about your team mates?

Tree of Life · Mar 7, 2018

icxn said:
So you have a bat (logic) and the ball (scriptures) and lets say you have skills (sharp mind), is that enough to play and win the game (salvation)? What is your playing field and what are the bases? What about your team mates?

To say that Scripture alone is our infallible source of truth does not mean that Scripture and logic are the only things needed in the Christian life. Of course we also need the fellowship of the church and obedience to God in the world. I know we need these things because the Bible says we need them.

fhansen · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
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:

The Trinity

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:

There is one God

Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

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.

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.

The problem is the uncertainty when biblical exegesis is the sole means of determining the truths of the faith for all practical purposes. Oneness Pentecostals subscribe to Sola Scriptura, and JWs even have plausible arguments based on Scripture for the non-deity of Jesus.

With the support of the Church's experience, issuing from the beginnings of our faith, positions on such matters as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, justification, etc, were already settled; they were non-issues. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually gave rise to controversies over these and other matters, between the adherents of the doctrine.

mark kennedy · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
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:

The Trinity

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:

There is one God

Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

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.

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 always seemed to me to be a chicken and egg problem, which came first the Catholic church or the Scriptures. Either the Scriptures empower it's ministers with Apostolic authority or the traditions of Rome empower ministers, and by extension, believers.

Tree of Life · Mar 7, 2018

mark kennedy said:
It always seemed to me to be a chicken and egg problem, which came first the Catholic church or the Scriptures. Either the Scriptures empower it's ministers with Apostolic authority or the traditions of Rome empower ministers, and by extension, believers.

I think a more fundamental question is: "which came first - the people of God or the word of God?"

To this we must answer: "the word of God." The word of God creates the people of God - not the other way around.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Mar 7, 2018

If you are going to argue that the Trinity, as it stands in the technical definition, is necessary for Christian faith (as all Christians do) then you are going to have to give more authority to the Church which formulated it. That the Trinity is implied from scripture is an interpretation (which I agree with), one backed up by the Church which makes it's members confess the Nicene creed if they want to belong. We are in effect going beyond the scripture, going beyond Sola scriptura in doing this.

Why should the sola Scriptura believer insist on adherence to classical trinity in an absolute sense? Would any Protestant Church be as bold as the first two ecumenical councils and anathematise anyone who disagreed with them regarding this point? On the basis of the bible alone, they couldn't, since these categories and terms exceed the bible. The ecumenical councils are the Church exercising it's privilege of authority which Protestants deny it has.

Does the Church have authority to settle matters of doctrine which the bible does not explicitly lay out? It would not seem so on Protestantism. I would suggest if you want Christians to adhere to the Trinity, you have no real reason for doing so if you insist on the bible as the highest or only authority.

mark kennedy · Mar 7, 2018

Tree of Life said:
I think a more fundamental question is: "which came first - the people of God or the word of God?"

To this we must answer: "the word of God." The word of God creates the people of God - not the other way around.

Always the ancient Hebrews has as their basis of revelation the Torah and a steady diet of Levitical teaching was a requisite of the OT covenant. The Church has always had at the heart of their universal convictions the gospel as established by Christ and the Apostles. Many of the problems associated with the monarchy in Israel and ecclesiastic authority in the church stems from shifting moorings. A Pope, a council, a synod or a wayward congregation set a drift in the mist of secular and pagan influences face hazards from the waves in the deep, and the rocks beneath the shallows. As Aristotle said so elogantly, virtue is found in the balance between excess and deficiency, to much is vice, too little is equally immoral and the balance is so hard to maintain it's almost rare.

My real problem with Solo Scriptura is the same as my problem with faith alone, faith is never alone, it must be followed by sanctification or it's not saving faith. The Scriptures are never alone because they have never been alone, they have always been attached to a living witness, the Hebrew and Christian committees respectively.

The canon of a Bishop, which is the only office the Pope actually holds, is Pastoral. The canon of the witness of the Apostles is clearly foundational and a foundation supports the entire building, Christ being the chief cornerstone. I have seen it argued repeatedly that it was Rome that authorized the Scriptures in the first place. As Paul said, 'can the clay say to the potter, what makest thou? That regretfully is where I must depart from Rome and I relish the appeal of converting to Catholics but lack the core convictions.

The extrabiblical doctrines, sacraments, devotions to Mary, the authority of Popes and councils all conspire in my conscience to persuade me otherwise. I do not hate Rome and will not oppose their devotions or Pastoral ministry, I thank God for it. But I cannot accept that Rome authorized the Apostolic witness of the New Testament nor am I able to confess they are the sole ecclesiastical authority regarding their interpretation. If I must choose, and I would not choose to if I had an alternative, I would have to stand on Scripture alone. Knowing full well it is never alone, faith in the gospel brings the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who guides us into all understanding. As Martin Luther said, 'here I stand, I can do no other'. If that makes me anathema to Rome, with regrets, then so be it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Sola Scriptura - The Bible and Logic (contra Catholics)

Everything You say is Life to me

Fading curmudgeon

Hide The Pain

Hide The Pain

Hide The Pain

Everything You say is Life to me

growing in grace

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Pray in silence...God speaks softly

Hide The Pain

Everything You say is Life to me

Hide The Pain

Junior Member

Bραδύγλωσσος αἰπόλος μαθητεύων κνίζειν συκάμινα

Hide The Pain

Oldbie

Natura non facit saltum

Hide The Pain

Dissident

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads