Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[concretecamper]

The characteristic of those who are members of the one true church is that no matter what denomination that they are in, they are all in absolute unity

Really? Absolute unity? I don't think so. Your statement is contradictory.

they are all in absolute unity about where they stand with Christ, that He died on the Cross to pay the full debt of sin and that when they stand before God in the Judgment, God will dismiss their case, because Jesus paid their penalty when He died on the Cross

No they are not in unity about this belief and many others.

I have fellowshipped in a number of different churches, Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic, and I have found that all the genuine believers I have mixed with believe exactly the same in their commitment to Christ and His finished work on the Cross

That is admirable, but that doesn't mean anything about Unity.

What different denominations believe outside of that is merely cosmetic and characteristic of their own denomination and place in history.

At best, your best case scenario is that the disunity is sometimes great and sometimes small. But you cannot say there is unity.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not "His Church"?

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I was speaking to someone that claims that the Eucharist is symbolic, when for 1500 years the Church taught different.
The poster claims that God used the Roman Catholic Church to compile the Bible to reveal it to those that believe as he does.
As far as I know, the Orthodox do not teach that the Eucharist is symbolic

 

[bbbbbbb]

What do your friends who are Faithful Catholics say about it?

Are Faithful Catholics also Roman Catholics?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I was speaking to someone that claims that the Eucharist is symbolic, when for 1500 years the Church taught different.
The poster claims that God used the Roman Catholic Church to compile the Bible to reveal it to those that believe as he does.
As far as I know, the Orthodox do not teach that the Eucharist is symbolic

You wrote "Is that your position? That God used a group that was not his Church to compile His text to reveal it to His church . . ."

Did or did not the Eastern Orthodox churches compile the text of the Bible? If so, what does that make your denomination which showed up after the Great Schism? If not, then who was the "his Church" you were referencing?

 

[concretecamper]

Are Faithful Catholics also Roman Catholics?

idk, they are your friends we keep hearing about.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Really? Absolute unity? I don't think so. Your statement is contradictory.

No they are not in unity about this belief and many others.

That is admirable, but that doesn't mean anything about Unity.

At best, your best case scenario is that the disunity is sometimes great and sometimes small. But you cannot say there is unity.

I am not talking about unity in terms of liturgy, church government, Arminian or Calvinist theology and all the different positions within those extremes. The unity I am talking about is the reliance on Christ's finished work on the Cross and HIs resurrection. These are common throughout all believers in those churches that adhere to the Nicene Creed, or the similar creed by which the Greek Orthodox church goes by. If a group does not have its reliance on the finished work of Christ on the Cross, then it is not Christian - such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness who believe in a Jesus different from the Jesus of the Gospels.

 

[concretecamper]

I am not talking about unity in terms of liturgy, church government, Arminian or Calvinist theology and all the different positions within those extremes. The unity I am talking about is the reliance on Christ's finished work on the Cross and HIs resurrection. These are common throughout all believers in those churches that adhere to the Nicene Creed, or the similar creed by which the Greek Orthodox church goes by. If a group does not have its reliance on the finished work of Christ on the Cross, then it is not Christian - such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness who believe in a Jesus different from the Jesus of the Gospels.

I understand what you mean. And without arguing the point, all I'll say is that when Jesus prayed to the Father for His Church to One, He compared it to the Oneness that exists between Him and the Father. I think the Oneness you describe falls way short of that.

 

[lismore]

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

Hello Zippy. I hope you're well. IMHO almost every church/denomination/believer would be reluctant to openly and quickly propagate a doctrine that directly contradicts the scriptures. In this sense I would say that almost every church clearly recognizes Sola Scriptura to an extent. It's more than a doctrine it's like an obvious, unassailable safeguard. Whenever a church leader quickly and openly produces a doctrine that directly contradicts scripture almost every church would see them as a crank.

Some denominations through long tradition and perhaps losing access to the scriptures find themselves step by step by step to be in a doctrinal position seemingly directly opposed to the scriptures on numerous counts, as perhaps the Israelites of old found themselves in before the scroll was found in Josiah's day. The choice then is to repent or to continue to obfuscate. But even those who continue to obfuscate will treat the scriptures seemingly as something they are reluctant to be seen to directly contradict.

God Bless

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You wrote "Is that your position? That God used a group that was not his Church to compile His text to reveal it to His church . . ."

Did or did not the Eastern Orthodox churches compile the text of the Bible? If so, what does that make your denomination which showed up after the Great Schism? If not, then who was the "his Church" you were referencing?

The texts of the Bible were compiled by God’s Church and it was of one accord when the texts were compiled. The Eastern Orthodox were not a denomination until after the great schism in the eleventh century approximately 700 years after the canon was set.
The council of Trent in the sixteenth century simply reaffirmed the canon after the arguments of one Martin Luther.
The Eastern Orthodox are considered to have valid Apostolic orders through succession. Although not in full accord with the Holy See at this time, they were when the canon was written.
My argument was with a Protestant that proposed that God used the Apostolic Church to compile and publish the scriptural canon to be revealed to those that believe as he does a full 1500 years after pentecost. He thinks that scripture invalidates the Eucharist as taught by the Apostles and was not corrected until Zwingli preached that the sacraments were symbolic only

 

[bbbbbbb]

The texts of the Bible were compiled by God’s Church and it was of one accord when the texts were compiled. The Eastern Orthodox were not a denomination until after the great schism in the eleventh century approximately 700 years after the canon was set.
The council of Trent in the sixteenth century simply reaffirmed the canon after the arguments of one Martin Luther.
The Eastern Orthodox are considered to have valid Apostolic orders through succession. Although not in full accord with the Holy See at this time, they were when the canon was written.
My argument was with a Protestant that proposed that God used the Apostolic Church to compile and publish the scriptural canon to be revealed to those that believe as he does a full 1500 years after pentecost. He thinks that scripture invalidates the Eucharist as taught by the Apostles and was not corrected until Zwingli preached that the sacraments were symbolic only

Thanks! Then His Church includes not only all of the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, but all that developed following the Council of Nicea, which would naturally not only included the EOC and the RCC, but also all the various Protestant denominations.

 

[Valletta]

Thanks! Then His Church includes not only all of the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, but all that developed following the Council of Nicea, which would naturally not only included the EOC and the RCC, but also all the various Protestant denominations.

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I understand what you mean. And without arguing the point, all I'll say is that when Jesus prayed to the Father for His Church to One, He compared it to the Oneness that exists between Him and the Father. I think the Oneness you describe falls way short of that.

I don't think that perfect unity among Christian believers is possible in this world. But when we are resurrected to glory, then the church as the bride of Christ will be fully one. Denominational divides will not survive the fire of God, and all that will be left is the multitude without number in white robes worshiping before the throne of God, as described in the book of Revelation.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

ÈThanks! Then His Church includes not only all of the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, but all that developed following the Council of Nicea, which would naturally not only included the EOC and the RCC, but also all the various Protestant denominations.

Yet God has only one Church and He calls us all to humility. It is a grave sin for Christ’s body to be divided. Believers in the various denominations do not bear the same sin as the schismatics and heretics that originally perpetrated the act, yet we are to study, pray and learn the path of humility.
Christ has told us that unless we make ourselves as little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. We all think that we are kings and have a direct line to God, but is it His will that it be that way? God calls us to humble ourselves, deny ourselves, take up our cross. Don’t be like the Jews that boasted, We have Abraham as our father. They were told, God can raise up from these stones children for Abraham. Rather repent, and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.

That all may be one as Jesus and the Father are one

 

[concretecamper]

I don't think that perfect unity among Christian believers is possible in this world.

But there must be perfect Unity in His Church, or else Jesus' prayer failed.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But there must be perfect Unity in His Church, or else Jesus' prayer failed.

It is sort of like the half-empty and half-full glass. As long as humans are human there never can be absolute and total unity on any matter. Even within denominations such as yours which claim perfect unity there is a surprising amount of diversity. It is a simply matter to sweep the diverse voices under the rug and deny they exist and that there is complete agreement on every jot and tittle of doctrine and practice. However, the reality is that if there were perfect unity on every jot and tittle of doctrine and practice there were be no diversity whatsoever.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yet God has only one Church and He calls us all to humility. It is a grave sin for Christ’s body to be divided. Believers in the various denominations do not bear the same sin as the schismatics and heretics that originally perpetrated the act, yet we are to study, pray and learn the path of humility.
Christ has told us that unless we make ourselves as little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. We all think that we are kings and have a direct line to God, but is it His will that it be that way? God calls us to humble ourselves, deny ourselves, take up our cross. Don’t be like the Jews that boasted, We have Abraham as our father. They were told, God can raise up from these stones children for Abraham. Rather repent, and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.

That all may be one as Jesus and the Father are one

Yes, I believe that the vast majority of Christians are sincerely praying that those who have wandered off the path will humble themselves and repent of their errors and rejoin them. It is certainly true of the EOC which deeply laments the Great Schism when the RCC schismed from the one, true, orthodox church. However, it does not appear likely that the RCC is remotely interested in humbling itself and confessing its errors and rejoining the EOC.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I don't think that perfect unity among Christian believers is possible in this world. But when we are resurrected to glory, then the church as the bride of Christ will be fully one. Denominational divides will not survive the fire of God, and all that will be left is the multitude without number in white robes worshiping before the throne of God, as described in the book of Revelation.

Why is that? Could it be that the only thing stopping it is human pride?
God is not pleased with pride. Humble yourself, become a child and follow your Lord.

Think you know how to run a church better than anyone? Do you know the Bible so well that you can’t be wrong? Have a direct line to Jesus?

Beware, those are the same lies Satan told Eve. You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. He does run a kingdom, not a democracy. Be sure you want to follow the Lord, and do not desire Him to follow you

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why is that? Could it be that the only thing stopping it is human pride?
God is not pleased with pride. Humble yourself, become a child and follow your Lord.

Think you know how to run a church better than anyone? Do you know the Bible so well that you can’t be wrong? Have a direct line to Jesus?

Beware, those are the same lies Satan told Eve. You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. He does run a kingdom, not a democracy. Be sure you want to follow the Lord, and do not desire Him to follow you

I suppose that chap in Rome thinks he can run a church better than anyone else. He and his predecessors have certainly been quite convincing about it. He must know the Bible so well that he couldn't be wrong, especially when he makes his ex cathedra pronouncements. As they say, folks who inhabit glass basilicas ought not to throw stones.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Yes, I believe that the vast majority of Christians are sincerely praying that those who have wandered off the path will humble themselves and repent of their errors and rejoin them. It is certainly true of the EOC which deeply laments the Great Schism when the RCC schismed from the one, true, orthodox church. However, it does not appear likely that the RCC is remotely interested in humbling itself and confessing its errors and rejoining the EOC.

You want to make that statement over a matter of leavened vs unleavened bread? That is what caused the schism. There is a lot more history to consider who holds Apostolic authority and who needs to repent. Which action glorifies God, and which action swells the pride of man? These are difficult thoughts for one in schism.
The thing to remember is that it was Jesus Himself that gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. Keys is a plural word, and it signifies two keys of authority. One is teaching authority, the other is political authority. To defy teaching authority is heresy. To defy political authority is schism. Both do equal violence to the Body of Christ.
After the crucifixion and before the ascension, Peter had lost his authority due to his denial of the Lord. Though he repented and wept bitterly, he did not have the power on his own, nor did the Apostles have the authority to restore Peter.
That could only be done by Our Lord Himself. Peter denied the Lord three times, and we can see that he lost his authority because Our Lord no longer addressed him as Peter. Our Lord asked him three times, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? After three times, Our Lord gives Peter back his authority with the command, Feed my Sheep. We see in the book of Acts, Peter leads the Church with authority, miracles, signs and wonders

 

[Clare73]

You want to make that statement over a matter of leavened vs unleavened bread? That is what caused the schism. There is a lot more history to consider who holds Apostolic authority and who needs to repent. Which action glorifies God, and which action swells the pride of man? These are difficult thoughts for one in schism.

Seems you don't know many born-again Protestants. . .