Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[fhansen]

no need to go off the lighted path into darkness.

Which you've done. Forunately most people regardless of denomination or external influences of various novel doctrines, etc, live as if what they choose to do, how they live their lives with the grace given, counts.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Which you've done. Forunately most people regardless of denomination or external influences of various novel doctrines, etc, live as if what they choose to do, how they live their lives with the grace given, counts.

I will let God be the judge of that as He is the only one who knows our heart and will be the righteous judge of all.

This isn’t about judging it’s about staying on the lighted path we are told to take that is led by God’s Word Psalms 119:105so we can stand when Jesus comes. Everything needed for salvation is found in God’s Word.

 

[fhansen]

I will let God be the judge of that as He is the only one who knows our heart and will be the righteous judge of all.

This isn’t about judging it’s about staying on the lighted path we are told to take that is lead by God’s Word so we can stand when Jesus comes.

Exactly. So we're all to do the best we can, with the knowledge and gifts given us. I'm sure there'll be surprises for all in heaven- as to our theologies.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree with the definitions you give, but note that all dogmas are doctrines (even though not all doctrines are dogmas). So according to your own definitions it makes no sense to say that Sola Scriptura is a dogma but not a doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is surely a doctrine. If it is a dogma-doctrine then the argument of the OP is even stronger.

What would you use in place of scripture to determine whether a doctrine is correct or just something someone liked and decided would make others comply with? I think there is nothing that can be considered more beneficial than the practice of basing the decision on whether a doctrine is in line with Christ's vision than by consulting the scriptures to see if it falls in line with what is written down there. Whether one considers that practice to be dogmatic or doctrinal or both does not change the validity of the practice. The geometric definition of a point is self-contradictory, something that es exists with no dimensions whatsoever, yet it is the basis for every building plan, and this self-contradictory point seems to be not only quite useful but quite necessary in deciding which planned buildings will stand and which will not. So too Sola Scriptura and doctrines. .

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Exactly. So we're all to do the best we can, with the knowledge and gifts given us. I'm sure there'll be surprises for all in heaven- as to our theologies.

I agree that there will probably be a lot of surprises in heaven, disagree on the path to get there, but pray that we all will be there.

Thanks for chatting!

 

[concretecamper]

Is that how we interpret scripture- by going off what it doesn’t say instead of going by what it does say?

We don't add to what Scripture says.

 

[concretecamper]

Everything we need for salvation is found in scripture

Scripture doesn't claim this. It is a man made idea that you are free to believe. Just don't expect us to follow along.

 

[zippy2006]

What would you use in place of scripture to determine whether a doctrine is correct or just something someone liked and decided would make others comply with? I think there is nothing that can be considered more beneficial than the practice of basing the decision on whether a doctrine is in line with Christ's vision than by consulting the scriptures to see if it falls in line with what is written down there. Whether one considers that practice to be dogmatic or doctrinal or both does not change the validity of the practice. The geometric definition of a point is self-contradictory, something that es exists with no dimensions whatsoever, yet it is the basis for every building plan, and this self-contradictory point seems to be not only quite useful but quite necessary in deciding which planned buildings will stand and which will not. So too Sola Scriptura and doctrines. .

I think Sola Scriptura is chimerical in all sorts of ways. Really I would say it just needs to be abandoned wholesale, and I don't understand how it could be compared to the geometrical point. We can easily do without Sola Scriptura, whereas geometricians cannot do without the geometrical point.

The alternative paradigm is the Apostolic paradigm that Jimmy Akin presents in the OP video. Rather than grounding your authority in a book you need to ground your authority in a person, in this case Christ and his Church (the Apostles and their successors).

 

[GDL]

The church, east and/or west, is absolutely essential in having correct understanding.

That's quite a statement. So, if I do not view Rome or others as the authority to explain Scripture, then I cannot have correct understanding?

Some months back I read a book based upon a dissertation on the debated phrase "the works of the law". The research began with Paul's writings and comparable details from the Bible, then went onward to the Church Fathers and continued onward through history to a survey of various contemporary scholars of various denominations. The conclusion was no real conclusion.

Then along comes @HARK! in a recent post revealing a [part of a] document known as 4Q-MMT, which I do not recall reading about in the 289 pages of research and discussion on the phrase. This document provides another point of view that seems well-worthy of consideration.

There is at least one organization I'm aware of that is traveling the globe in search of other manuscripts evidence yet undiscovered. There are people within the Messianic movement doing some very interesting work in ancient and more contemporary Jewish works. There are people doing interpretational work in Hebrew and Aramaic idioms that were translated into Greek and may well have lost their meanings.

Honestly, I'm at my current best as a free agent able to glean from whomever, whenever. You have been a source of better understanding of Rome for me and I have found much agreement with your POV. I think your background in Protestantism is helpful. I can't agree with your quoted statement.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think Sola Scriptura is chimerical in all sorts of ways. Really I would say it just needs to be abandoned wholesale, and I don't understand how it could be compared to the geometrical point. We can easily do without Sola Scriptura, whereas geometricians cannot do without the geometrical point.

The alternative paradigm is the Apostolic paradigm that Jimmy Akin presents in the OP video. Rather than grounding your authority in a book you need to ground your authority in a person, in this case Christ and his Church (the Apostles and their successors).

So how, outside of direct revelation, is one supposed to discern what Christ, or the Apostles hold without consulting the scriptures? Outside of what we can read in the scriptures (and direct revelation which I, at least, have not experienced), they are not available for consultation on which doctrines are correct and which are poppycock. The Church does not seem to have unanimity of doctrine throughout its many denominations so how can a divided Church have authoritative advice? Additionally, the compilation of the scriptures was the work of the Church when those successors you mentioned were in agreement. Shouldn't we take advantage of that in deciding the matter of what doctrine may or may not conform to Christ? Certainly, we can pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit but trusting ourselves to be honest with ourselves about what the Holy Spirit may be telling us seems more likely to be a problem than trusting the Holy Spirit to guide us by using the scriptures. One can claim the Holy Spirit tells us something the scriptures do not, but that claim is not as solid as being able to point out the Holy Spirit tells us the same thing that scripture does.

The authority of the Bible is not the authority of a book but the authority of God's Word. It is a written account of what God has told his people about himself from the time of Adam to the time of the early Church. The authority of scripture does not come from the scribes who wrote it or of the books in it, but from the fairly universally accepted belief that it is divinely inspired.

As for the point. You claim that Sola Scriptura is self-refuting and therefore not useful. The point is self - refuting in that it is a said to exist without having one quality of anything that does actually exist in the physical world. That being the case, if both are self-refuting, and being self-refuting automatically makes the one useless, how does one explain how the other is not only useful but necessary?

 

[fhansen]

That's quite a statement. So, if I do not view Rome or others as the authority to explain Scripture, then I cannot have correct understanding?

Some months back I read a book based upon a dissertation on the debated phrase "the works of the law". The research began with Paul's writings and comparable details from the Bible, then went onward to the Church Fathers and continued onward through history to a survey of various contemporary scholars of various denominations. The conclusion was no real conclusion.

Then along comes @HARK! in a recent post revealing a [part of a] document known as 4Q-MMT, which I do not recall reading about in the 289 pages of research and discussion on the phrase. This document provides another point of view that seems well-worthy of consideration.

There is at least one organization I'm aware of that is traveling the globe in search of other manuscripts evidence yet undiscovered. There are people within the Messianic movement doing some very interesting work in ancient and more contemporary Jewish works. There are people doing interpretational work in Hebrew and Aramaic idioms that were translated into Greek and may well have lost their meanings.

Honestly, I'm at my current best as a free agent able to glean from whomever, whenever. You have been a source of better understanding of Rome for me and I have found much agreement with your POV. I think your background in Protestantism is helpful. I can't agree with your quoted statement.

It’s hard to know where to start. I didn’t choose to be Catholic so much as simply found it to be the right course of action, to my own surprise. But that’s a long story. IMO the best theologians, Catholic or otherwise, have been free thinkers, using whatever methods and sources are out there to help better understand and clarify the faith. I appreciate this more or less related simple statement from Augustine, “All truth is God’s truth.”

And yet our faith is not derived simply from scholarship or science, much as they can contribute. The faith is something we’ve inherited, and that legacy traces its history back through time to the beginning. And that legacy, that lived experience, must have some value. So the ancient churches are another source, having their input, which is often referred to as Tradition, Sacred Tradition as opposed to human traditions. And the ECFs contribute here as well, to what the early church believed and taught. God established a church, one church, and while it had rivalries from different groups, claiming to have the true gospel, only one church prevailed and held councils (which decided on matters that still affect Christianity to this day) and grew, in the east and west, and there wasn’t considered to be any other church, for centuries. There was no need.

Of course, east and west finally divided and yet even after centuries of isolation from each other the same basic theology, particularly on the most salient of matters: justification-what it takes to satisfy God and realize eternal life- are essentially the same. And this is the one issue that Luther correctly stated was at the crux of the Reformation. The more I understand the issue, the more I agree with and appreciate the ancient teachings, not the modern ones. Anyway, there are many issues that people, going strictly by Scripture alone, disagree with each other over, and often quite plausibly so. And many of these were/are never even controversial among the early churches.

 

[GDL]

The faith is something we’ve inherited, and that legacy traces its history back through time to the beginning. And that legacy, that lived experience, must have some value

It only has value to the extent it is Truth. Jesus Himself was the originator and completer of The Faith (Heb12:2) that was once for all handed down to the Holy Ones (Jude1:3). Jude goes from there to express the battle already going on to protect The Faith of Jesus Christ. There are sufficient statements in the NC to indicate several departures from The Faith were taking place in the first century. The Jewishness of The Faith is extremely difficult to ignore IMO.

It's easy to rely upon traditions not found in Scripture. The Jews did the same thing and Jesus contended with some of this. Scripture remains the authority in my view, not because I'm Protestant or any such thing. I don't like any of the denominational labels. I'm a Christian. So are all my true siblings in Christ. In the end He will tell us all what we got right and wrong. IMO this includes the ECF and all those who made claim to succession for whatever their reasons and/or agendas. If it's not the inspired Text and His Spirit, all we have is fallible men and whatever they come up with after the cornerstone was placed and the foundation was put down. I see nothing telling me I need to partake of what I do not read in Christ in Spirit. Scripture commends men in the synagogue for checking Paul with Scripture. Whatever His reasons are for allowing all the denominationalism beginning in the first century on, it's a mystery to me. My understanding is He returns to Jerusalem, not to Rome or anywhere else.

 

[fhansen]

It only has value to the extent it is Truth. Jesus Himself was the originator and completer of The Faith (Heb12:2) that was once for all handed down to the Holy Ones (Jude1:3). Jude goes from there to express the battle already going on to protect The Faith of Jesus Christ. There are sufficient statements in the NC to indicate several departures from The Faith were taking place in the first century.

And those are some of my points. And none of that is contradicted by the fact that the church may well have known more than that which was recorded in Scirpture-and in fact would be expected to do so IMO. A church, the church survived, despite the weak vessels that make up her members, the church that assembed the canon of NT Scripture, the church that determined the nature of the Trintiy at Nicaea, the church that eloqently and solidly pronounced on the unequivocable necessity of grace to move man to God at the council of Orange. Etc

As far as 1st century departures, you'd have ti demonstrate it. With every bible reader being an expert on the b;liefs ad practices of the early church I suppose it might be easy enough to determine these departures. But I'd spend some time in relatively intense study of the ECFs, for one, of history, IOW, and I think it'd be eye-opening.

 

[GDL]

As far as 1st century departures, you'd have ti demonstrate it. With every bible reader being an expert on the b;liefs ad practices of the early church I suppose it might be easy enough to determine these departures. But I'd spend some time in relatively intense study of the ECFs, for one, of history, IOW, and I think it'd be eye-opening.

Appreciate the suggestion. I've read some of the ECF. As I mentioned before, there is a lot of eye-opening from many sources. Based upon my respect for some of your writings, I may well read some more in my varied readings, but I doubt they'll get me in submission to Rome.

the fact that the church may well have known more than that which was recorded in Scirpture

If others would have to demonstrate what specific 1st century departures led to, then speculation as to what may have been known would also have to be demonstrated and tied specifically to Scripture. But IMO in nearly 2 millennia that has not been accomplished to the satisfaction of many. As you know, there's been a tremendous amount of scholarly work on all sides of the arguments on this matter.

A church, the church survived

Well, writings survived, and God has used many different sources, both good and evil and even a donkey, to accomplish His objectives over time. What has also survived and existed well before Roman Catholicism is the Jewish race and their Scriptures and a people whether in or out of RC called "Christians".

 

[fhansen]

If others would have to demonstrate what specific 1st century departures led to, then speculation as to what may have been known would also have to be demonstrated and tied specifically to Scripture. But IMO in nearly 2 millennia that has not been accomplished to the satisfaction of many. As you know, there's been a tremendous amount of scholarly work on all sides of the arguments on this matter.

I'll give an example. In the EO and RCC teachings, baptism is necessary for salvation. We can argue back and forth on this going by Scripture and yet this is simply how it was received, as the norm, and believed and practiced since day one. No controversy-with ECFs either. The church would allow for ignorance or the physical impossibility of being baptized before death but this is simply what Jesus modeled and taught-and the very fact that it was a continuous belief and practice needs no defending; it’s simply part of the Way, the Tradition. No solemn dogmatic pronouncement on this matter was ever necessary.

OTOH Protestantism cannot, and has no definitive way to, make a determination on this matter; some simply read the bible one way while others another way, with both having equal right to make their determination, which is closer to a guess. Same thing with the Real Presence, and even the deity of Jesus is being questioned more in these times, with Scripture as the sole guiding authority.

 

[GDL]

and practiced since day one

"day one" being and according to who? We can debate this just as much as we can debate Scripture, can we not?

 

[zippy2006]

This is getting off topic, but your questions are surely reasonable so I will try to offer a response. That said, I probably won't attend to this tangent for too long, since it will lead down all sorts of rabbit holes.

So how, outside of direct revelation, is one supposed to discern what Christ, or the Apostles hold without consulting the scriptures? Outside of what we can read in the scriptures (and direct revelation which I, at least, have not experienced), they are not available for consultation on which doctrines are correct and which are poppycock. [...] Additionally, the compilation of the scriptures was the work of the Church when those successors you mentioned were in agreement.

Yes, but it is notable that different Christians hold to different canons, and that the canon is obviously not included in Scripture. Also, we have evidence of disagreements among the early community even within the NT texts themselves, and history shows us that this did not disappear.

The Church does not seem to have unanimity of doctrine throughout its many denominations so how can a divided Church have authoritative advice? Additionally, the compilation of the scriptures was the work of the Church when those successors you mentioned were in agreement. Shouldn't we take advantage of that in deciding the matter of what doctrine may or may not conform to Christ?

Yes, I think so, and I think most Christians do. For example, in general Christians take the first seven ecumenical councils to be more authoritative than anything that came afterwards. This seems quite reasonable to me, and is one way to address the fact that Christianity is divided.

Certainly, we can pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit but trusting ourselves to be honest with ourselves about what the Holy Spirit may be telling us seems more likely to be a problem than trusting the Holy Spirit to guide us by using the scriptures. One can claim the Holy Spirit tells us something the scriptures do not, but that claim is not as solid as being able to point out the Holy Spirit tells us the same thing that scripture does.

The Scriptures do have authority, but it doesn't ultimately make sense to say that they constitute the sole rule of faith ("Sola Scriptura").

The authority of the Bible is not the authority of a book but the authority of God's Word. It is a written account of what God has told his people about himself from the time of Adam to the time of the early Church.

If it stands apart from any living voice which interprets and guides, then it is 'a book'. The Protestant's ultimate authority is an isolated book, albeit inspired. In Catholicism (and elsewhere) this book is part of a tradition, and flows from the living voice of God which continues to speak today, to interpret and guide. These hard logical contradictions noted in the OP do not apply to the Apostolic paradigm. The book needs to be seen in light of a greater whole.

As for the point. You claim that Sola Scriptura is self-refuting and therefore not useful.

Yes, but be careful not to conflate Sola Scriptura and Scripture itself. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant doctrine which is very different from Scripture itself. Scripture is useful and indispensable; Sola Scriptura is not. Protestants are blessed with the knowledge that the Scriptures are God's inspired word, and they should in no way forfeit such a divine gift.

The point is self - refuting in that it is a said to exist without having one quality of anything that does actually exist in the physical world.

A mathematical point is not a physical object, and thus should not be expected to exist in the way that objects in the physical world exist.

That being the case, if both are self-refuting, and being self-refuting automatically makes the one useless, how does one explain how the other is not only useful but necessary?

I don't see how a mathematical point can said to be "self-refuting." Does it entail some proposition which falsifies its own truth? I think not. A mathematical point is a useful abstraction that is used for the sake of other (mathematical) abstractions. It does not exist physically, nor does it's definition entail that it itself is false. Indeed, a mathematical point is a (mental) object, not a proposition, so it can't entail or refute anything.

I think your larger question is as follows: "Maybe Sola Scriptura isn't ultimately defensible, but are the alternatives any better? Are there better sources of Christian authority than the Sola Scriptura model?" Now I grant that Sola Scriptura seems to become more plausible in light of the divisions of Christianity, but I do think there are better models. In general I would say that although the various options among the Apostolic Paradigm are not perfect, they are nevertheless not self-refuting. Self-refutation is a rather serious problem. I realize I have posed you with a problem and no good solution, but I would suggest that any of the options which adhere to the Apostolic Paradigm are better options than Sola Scriptura, whether that be Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, etc.

Finally, in keeping with the strict spirit of the OP, I should again stress that the Protestant can abandon Sola Scriptura without abandoning the inspired Scriptures. Doing so only means that you will be open to God's guiding and interpretive word outside of the Scriptures. If you encounter someone who claims to represent that divine guidance, but contradicts the Scriptures, then you know he is not of God (cf. Gal 1:8). At the same time, you should be open to the idea that God has not left his Church without guidance, and that that guidance will look somehow similar to the guidance he provided in the Apostolic Age.

 

[fhansen]

"day one" being and according to who? We can debate this just as much as we can debate Scripture, can we not?

There was never an argument brought up against it-which is what happens when a practice or belief is controversial. And the ECFs unanimously support this. Its just history, way better supported than any opinion based strictly on Scripture.

 

[GDL]

There was never an argument brought up against it-which is what happens when a practice or belief is controversial. And the ECFs unanimously support this. Its just history, way better supported than any opinion based strictly on Scripture.

I haven't read this thoroughly, but what say you re: no disagreement among the ECF? It seems there was disagreement.
Early Church Fathers on Baptism and Salvation

On the other hand, I can go to another site and receive only the agreement quotes:
Necessity of Baptism — Church Fathers

But aren't they all dealing with interpretation of Scripture? And even though we debate such things today, can we not come to a conclusion as they did in interpretation? Do you need unanimity to determine what you believe?

 

[fhansen]

I haven't read this thoroughly, but what say you re: no disagreement among the ECF? It seems there was disagreement.
Early Church Fathers on Baptism and Salvation

On the other hand, I can go to another site and receive only the agreement quotes:
Necessity of Baptism — Church Fathers

But aren't they all dealing with interpretation of Scripture? And even though we debate such things today, can we not come to a conclusion as they did in interpretation? Do you need unanimity to determine what you believe?

No, they are not strictly dealing with interpretation of Scripture. They employed Scripture, as the Church always has and as we must do today, because it's one of the few agreed on sources of revelation. Tradition, absoluely essential as it is once the matter is understood, has no possibility of being referenced in the same direct manner. But the fathers came from an entire, well, tradition, of beliefs amd practices-a way doing things-that predated the New Testament writings. Its like someone arguing with you about what your family was like when you were young just because they read a bunch about it. It doesn't work that way. And because we're dealing with written material, yes, we can find somewhere, someplace, in the ECFs, a way to supoiort a particular view even if it strays far from the majority view, just as we can with Scripture. I beleive there are sometthing like 18 million words penned by the ECFs dependng on how far forward one goes. But read them seriously, and you'll end up finding a parculiarly familiar EO/Catholic flavor to their beliefs.