Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[GDL]

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.

This isn't about starting to get anything. Maybe like you (?), I've been doing this for a while. The more time goes on and the more Scripture I understand, the more I know my decision to stay away from Rome was one of my best decisions along the way.

This is not to say that I disagree with all RC interpretations of Scripture. I've found agreement with some Scripture studied RC's on many Scriptures and a few major doctrines we've discussed. From the very minimal amount I've seen from you, I wouldn't expect to see you do much of anything correct with Scripture.

 

[GDL]

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

Thanks. I got that Scripture was the authority over all men very early on. If not, then we never left the same dilemma we walked away from - thinking fallible men were experts in much of anything let alone in ultimate authority.

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.

Jesus is and always will be the authority over His Ekklesia and over all creation albeit we have to deal with some instruction in 1Cor15 that there's no need to specify for you since you don't read Scripture.

Once we understand the truth that Rome does not equal His Ekklesia, it's not too tough to understand how He really delegates authority. It's spelled out in His Word.

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

Same comment as above. You've been duped to equate Rome with His Ekklesia. But by your authority as an expert, it's your choice to be duped. If only you had read Scripture accurately with the assistance of the Spirit who leads & guides all His people, you'd see the warnings about being deceived. The problem for the deceived is that they are commanded not to be deceived. So, by being deceived you're actually in disobedience to the Authority in favor of bowing to the authority. We're also commanded to flee idolatry. I think you're in trouble and arguing to remain there.

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

When you can analyze Scripture and context, then let's discuss error at a level you're not able to comprehend. There are plenty of studied people here to assist you, along with some you'll want to be wary of, just as Scripture says.

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

Lip service. If God were your authority, you'd have put time and energy into learning His Word, which BTW is parallel to His Spirit (Prov1:23) - IOW the Word and the Spirit do not disagree with one another - and you would have learned more of what you're going to be judged by (John12:48). I probably should paste the entire Scripture because I doubt you will take the time to put a cursor over the linked reference to what you are in opposition to. But then again you probably wouldn't read the Scripture, and then again, if you did, then you'd just eisegete it. You're in quite the dilemma.

Care to discuss and analyze the Scripture you eisegeted & twisted to fit your view of Rome? Of course, you don't. You can't interpret Scripture and you don't understand construction analogy. You obviously just camp on concrete but don't build with it.

If you were to see where authority truly lies, you'd have way too much to apologize for. Don't worry about that - we students of Scripture are a forgiving bunch because we know we're commanded to be by our Lord in His Word. If Rome agrees with such forgiveness, it's because it learned some Truth from Him from His Word by the same Spirit somewhere along the way.

BTW, I'm not opposed to everything Rome as much as I'm opposed to your and any eisegesis of Scripture, and to the assertion of traditions above Scripture. As I said, I've had some very agreeable discussions of Scripture with some RC's. You're obviously not studied in Scripture as I've also said. To be studied in or familiar with RC positioning is really of no importance to me.

So again, would you like to discuss 1Tim3:15 word by word and point by point? We just touched on it a bit so far. Can you come to Scripture with any respect for what God has written and protected and made available to so many by this time? Can you also try very hard to not insert error into it? Will you be excommunicated if you do?

 

[Clare73]

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

Not in the NT. . .where "born again" does not mean "baptism" (baptisma).

The true meaning of "born again;" i.e., "regeneration" (palingenesia; palin = again, genesis = birth) is "new birth," with the two operating powers to produce such being "the word of truth" (Jas 1:18, 1 Pe 1:23) and "the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5-6, Tit 3:5), the washing (loutron) thereof being explained in Eph 5:26, "cleansed by the washing (loutron) of water with the word," of which baptism is a sign, not the rebirth itself.

The NT does not allow effecting or achieving the new birth by ceremony, it is only by a sovereign act of God's Spirit who, in doing as he pleases in regeneration, is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:7-8).

 

[concretecamper]

Not in the NT. . .where "born again" does not mean "baptism"

Agreed

 

[concretecamper]

So again, would you like to discuss 1Tim3:15 word by word and point by point? We just touched on it a bit so far. Can you come to Scripture with any respect for what God has written and protected and made available to so many by this time? Can you also try very hard to not insert error into it? Will you be excommunicated if you do?

We already have. It seems a lot of people have gotten a Greek lexicon starter kit for Christmas this year. I'll stick with the Church's and the Church Fathers interpretation rather than someone looking up Greek words in a book.

 

[GDL]

We already have. It seems a lot of people have gotten a Greek lexicon starter kit for Christmas this year. I'll stick with the Church's and the Church Fathers interpretation rather than someone looking up Greek words in a book.

That's another effective argument to avoid Scripture.

If the Church is not founded upon and walking according to Truth, then it's not His Church.

If I'm commanded how to behave in His Church, then I first want to know who's commanding what and what is His Church.

Scripture and His Spirit, in agreement, informs us how our Lord wants us to behave. Scripture informs us what in fact is His Church. Seems consistent to me and with Scripture being the common authority. I'm very satisfied and aligned with those many who don't see Scripture telling us Rome = Christ's Ekklesia. Far from it in fact. Seems simple to me but I along with many others study Scripture and in these days with a lot of tools used for many years and access to a lot of ever-increasing work done by a lot of people down through the ages - well before, during & including, and after the also fallible ECF and fallible group in Rome.

Since Jesus Christ is building His Ekklesia (Scripture tells us this) trying to convince me and many others that the past and current horrors of the Roman denomination is His work is really quite an impossible task. He knows who are His (Scripture tells us this). I'm good with basing life on Scripture in Christ in Spirit well apart from the Roman tradition.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You obviously just camp on concrete but don't build with it.

And yet another dazzling metaphorical usage of language.

 

[concretecamper]

If the Church is not founded upon and walking according to Truth, then it's not His Church.

That is the most true thing you've said so far. I'm in the right place

That's another effective argument to avoid Scripture

I've referenced a lot of scripture. Not a good argument on your part.

I'm very satisfied and aligned with those many who don't see Scripture telling us Rome = Christ's Ekklesia.

Many are lost, yes.

I'm good with basing life on Scripture in Christ in Spirit well apart from the Roman tradition

And eventually you'll find out whether you being "good" was a good choice.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Oh, getting insulting are you?

The Bible tell us The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. The Bible tells us the Tanahk is God Breathed 2 Tim 3:16. Where in the Bible does is tell us the Book of Revelation is inspired text? It was written way after Paul's first letter to Timothy and it certainly wasn't something Timothy knew in his youth.

You won’t get anywhere arguing whether someone believes in sola scriptura or not. They won’t listen, and they will keep proposing proof texts. Jesus tells us that you will know them by their fruits. Don’t look at what they say, but look at what they do.
In scripture we see Jesus teach that anyone that looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery, also divorce and remarriage is another form of adultery and in no way should be considered acceptable.
Yet every denomination that claims sola scriptura ignores those scriptures and teaches that contraception as well as divorce and remarriage are acceptable.
No where in scripture is contraception taught, or is divorce and remarriage considered ok. No where. But what do they say and do? Contracept and/ or divorce. They’ll say that the issue is too complex and would drive people away if taught as scripture teaches.
Oh really? When did Jesus ever submit Himself to public opinion? Never. He fought public opinion and presented the truth and was faithful to the point of crucifixion. But sola scripturists ignore that and say just take Jesus as your savior and it’s ok. The Lord said it wasn’t. He says not everyone that says to me Lord Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven, but they ignore that too. So much for sola scriptura.
Only the Catholic Church has maintained the truth of Christ and condemned contraception as well as divorce and remarriage. Oh you will find Catholics that divorce and contracept, but they are not living according to Church teaching and are therefore in mortal sin. Their souls are in danger as well as any sola scripturist that does not follow all of scripture.

They will only be able to offer excuses for that behavior, not scriptural teaching because it is not there.

I can only say repent and ask forgiveness while mercy is still offered. There will be a time when it is too late

 

[Clare73]

You won’t get anywhere arguing whether someone believes in sola scriptura or not. They won’t listen, and they will keep proposing proof texts. Jesus tells us that you will know them by their fruits. Don’t look at what they say, but look at what they do.
In scripture we see Jesus teach that anyone that looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery, also divorce and remarriage is another form of adultery and in no way should be considered acceptable.
Yet every denomination that claims sola scriptura ignores those scriptures and teaches that contraception as well as divorce and remarriage are acceptable.
No where in scripture is contraception taught,

Where in Scripture is it forbidden?

or is divorce and remarriage considered ok. No where. But what do they say and do? Contracept and/ or divorce. They’ll say that the issue is too complex and would drive people away if taught as scripture teaches.Oh really? When did Jesus ever submit Himself to public opinion? Never. He fought public opinion and presented the truth and was faithful to the point of crucifixion. But sola scripturists ignore that and say just take Jesus as your savior and it’s ok.

Do you consider that an accurate application to all those "sola scripturists" who do not ignore Jesus' commands?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

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.

Amen GDL. This is so true. Many contributors to CF truly are trying to get as close as we can "to letting infallibility lead and guide and teach and train me." As Paul wrote Timothy: Study and be approved to God. I learn a lot from contributors...and even more from select contributors I trust the most.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Where in Scripture is it forbidden?

Do you consider that an accurate application to all those "sola scripturists" who do not ignore Jesus' commands?

Is what forbidden? Contraception? Jesus tells us that to look on a woman with lust is sin. Contraception has no function but to facilitate lust, therefore it is forbidden
Romans teaches us that leaving the natural use of the woman, a soul will be abandoned to lust. We see that truth in modern society at the start of contraception, which lead to “free love” which lead to homosexuality, bestiality, porn, masturbation, pedophilia, blow up dolls and now robots. The natural use of the woman is motherhood and not satisfaction as an object of lust. Contraception has also lead to the increase in divorce as when a man has intercourse with a woman with no other object than lust or pleasure, he ceases to be a man and becomes a dynamically inserted libido delighting object. A woman will tire of this object, and when she does she throws it away like trash. That is not marriage no matter what piece of paper that says they took vows in a church. If they contracept, they are partners in crime like bonnie and Clyde not husband and wife. The woman that contracepts has held part of herself back from the man to be her husband, she has not submitted to the marriage. A man that contracepts disrespects his wife and uses her as an object. They are not following God’s command and are operating outside the grace of God. They still have His mercy as they are still alive and have time to repent, but will they?

There are other scriptures where we are warned to flee fornication. Mortify the deeds of the flesh
All Protestant denominations refuse to condemn contraception for the evil that it is. If individual sola scripturist so obey God and mortify their lust then I say God bless you, but Protestant denominations do not teach that although they claim sola scriptura

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The only information that we have about the nature and character of God, and how the universe and our world was formed, is in the Bible, in whatever translation we have at our disposal. Everything that is about God outside of the Bible is guesswork and speculation and we can't rely on it. If we don't believe what the Bible says about God, Christ, and the Gospel, then we have no other basis for faith and belief, because there is nothing else that provides substantive information about what we should and can believe about God.

Without the Bible, one can come up with any definition of "God", and there are all sorts of theories and definitions around the world, and even in what we call the Christian church. We have the modernist view that "God" is not a person but just a concept, and that Jesus never existed in history but is the "Christ of faith", no such thing as sin, judgment, heaven or hell, and that the Bible can't be taken literally, but treated as myth and metaphor. What results is a mystical, "feel good" type of religiousness and is little better than a "nothing burger" with no real substance or hope for the future.

 

[Clare73]

Is what forbidden? Contraception? Jesus tells us that to look on a woman with lust is sin. Contraception has no function but to facilitate lust, therefore it is forbidden

Only inordinate desire for sex is lust.
Sexual intimacy with one's spouse is ordained of God.

Romans teaches us that leaving the natural use of the woman,

Leaving the natural use of the woman in Ro 1:26 (which natural use is sexual intimacy with her male husband) is to engage in homosexuality.

a soul will be abandoned to lust. We see that truth in modern society at the start of contraception, which lead to “free love” which lead to homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals, inappropriate content, masturbation, pedophilia, blow up dolls and now robots. The natural use of the woman is motherhood and not satisfaction as an object of lust.

Sexual intercourse between husband and wife is not only for child-bearing. It is the unity of the two-in-one-flesh of the marital union, of which the union of Christ with his bride/wife, the Church, is the illustration (Eph 5:30-32).

Is the husband foridden to have sexual intercourse with his barren wife since "the natural use of the woman" does not exist for her?

Contraception has also lead to the increase in divorce as when a man has intercourse with a woman with no other object than lust or pleasure, he ceases to be a man and becomes a dynamically inserted libido delighting object. A woman will tire of this object, and when she does she throws it away like trash. That is not marriage no matter what piece of paper that says they took vows in a church. If they contracept, they are partners in crime like bonnie and Clyde not husband and wife. The woman that contracepts has held part of herself back from the man to be her husband, she has not submitted to the marriage. A man that contracepts disrespects his wife and uses her as an object. They are not following God’s command and are operating outside the grace of God. They still have His mercy as they are still alive and have time to repent, but will they?

There are other scriptures where we are warned to flee fornication.

Fornication is adultery, incest, sex outside of marriage (Mt 15:19, 1 Co 6:9).

Mortify the deeds of the flesh
All Protestant denominations refuse to condemn contraception for the evil that it is. If individual sola scripturist so obey God and mortify their lust then I say God bless you, but Protestant denominations do not teach that although they claim sola scriptura

Keeping in mind that timing sexual intercourse so that it does does not occur during ovulation is also contraception.

Not seeing sexual intercourse with contraception prohibited in the Scriptures.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Only inordinate desire for sex is lust.
Sexual intimacy with one's spouse is ordained of God.

Leaving the natural use of the woman in Ro 1:26 (which natural use is sexual intimacy with her male husband) is to engage in homosexuality.

Sexual intercourse between husband and wife is not only for child-bearing. It is the unity of the two-in-one-flesh of the marital union, of which the union of Christ with his bride/wife, the Church, is the illustration (Eph 5:30-32).

Is the husband foridden to have sexual intercourse with his barren wife since "the natural use of the woman" does not exist for her?


Fornication is adultery, incest, sex outside of marriage (Mt 15:19, 1 Co 6:9).

Keeping in mind that timing sexual intercourse so that it does does not occur during ovulation is also contraception.

Not seeing sexual intercourse with contraception prohibited in the Scriptures.

All I see in this particular discussion is that the only acceptable reason for sexual intimacy is for procreation. But is this what the Bible actually says. I don't see it. The discussion seems to involve 1 +1 =2, involving sex for procreation means that sex for any other reason is sin. But the Bible doesn't clearly say that. Therefore it is a matter of saying that because A is correct, B has to be incorrect, when A and B could both be correct.

The only direct reference to God bring judgment on a guy for allowing his seed to fall to the ground instead of where it should have gone, was that God had given a direct instruction for Onan to impregnate his brother's widow in order to have children to carry on the family line (Genesis 38). He refused the instruction by practicing coitus interruptus thereby preventing conception. So did he die because he used that method of contraception, or was it because he willfully disobeyed a direct instruction from the Lord? Therefore, do we use his example to state that everyone who uses contraception is sinning against the Lord? I doubt it. Many have used Onan's act of allowing his seed to fall to the ground to show that masturbation is a sin that condemns a person. But Onan was not masturbating at the time, so that theory is unreliable. So there is a reasonable doubt that contraception is a sin, unless God has made it quite clear that His will is for children to be conceived for that family. Then it is a matter of disobedience to God's express instruction rather than contraception itself.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

This is entirely correct and should be evident even to Protestants and those who adhere to an Invisible Church or Local Church ecclesiology.

 

[bbbbbbb]

All I see in this particular discussion is that the only acceptable reason for sexual intimacy is for procreation. But is this what the Bible actually says. I don't see it. The discussion seems to involve 1 +1 =2, involving sex for procreation means that sex for any other reason is sin. But the Bible doesn't clearly say that. Therefore it is a matter of saying that because A is correct, B has to be incorrect, when A and B could both be correct.

The only direct reference to God bring judgment on a guy for allowing his seed to fall to the ground instead of where it should have gone, was that God had given a direct instruction for Onan to impregnate his brother's widow in order to have children to carry on the family line (Genesis 38). He refused the instruction by practicing coitus interruptus thereby preventing conception. So did he die because he used that method of contraception, or was it because he willfully disobeyed a direction instruction from the Lord? Therefore, do we use his example to state that everyone who uses contraception is sinning against the Lord? I doubt it. Many have used Onan's act of allowing his seed to fall to the ground to show that masturbation is a sin that condemns a person. But Onan was not masturbating at the time, so that theory is unreliable. So there is a reasonable doubt that contraception is a sin, unless God has made it quite clear that His will is for children to be conceived for that family. Then it is a matter of disobedience to God's express instruction rather than contraception itself.

Strangely (IMO) the RCC has elevated masturbation to the level of a mortal sin which will automatically send anyone to hell unless they confess their sin to their priest. I have a Catholic friend whose priest finally told him not to bother him with perpetual confessions of this sin. I suppose there may be priests who are quite prurient and enjoy these sorts of confessions.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is entirely correct and should be evident even to Protestants and those who adhere to an Invisible Church or Local Church ecclesiology.

Everything that speaks about Christ's authority is found in the Bible and nowhere else. Even the Church itself is a product of what the Bible says about it. Therefore the Church is not the first cause or the foundation. The Bible is the foundation on which the Church is built.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Everything that speaks about Christ's authority is found in the Bible and nowhere else. Even the Church itself is a product of what the Bible says about it. Therefore the Church is not the first cause or the foundation. The Bible is the foundation on which the Church is built.

Yes, the parallel is quite interesting - Jesus Christ, the Word of God who upholds all things through His word. Curiously, I was surprised at the first RCC mass I attended when, at some point, an acolyte held up an open book, which looked like a Bible to me, and loudly proclaimed, "This is the word of the Lord, this is the word of the Lord, this is the word of the Lord."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Strangely (IMO) the RCC has elevated masturbation to the level of a mortal sin which will automatically send anyone to hell unless they confess their sin to their priest. I have a Catholic friend whose priest finally told him not to bother him with perpetual confessions of this sin. I suppose there may be priests who are quite prurient and enjoy these sorts of confessions.

Masturbation is merely a bodily function. It is not a sin in itself. The sin is what arouses the person to cause him or her to want to do it. It is the sexual fantasy or the viewing of porn which is the sin, not the act of masturbation itself.