Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[bbbbbbb]

Oh sure, I understand that. Actually that set of blog posts from Kimel covers a few of the different Protestant positions. My phrasing was ambiguous. I meant to refer to "[that subset] of Protestants who believe in OSAS..." rather than, "Protestants who [all] believe in OSAS..."

...Or perhaps I was just misrepresenting some of the more nuanced views, such as the Lutheran view. Do Lutherans deny perseverance? I was under the impression that they affirm it in a rather complex way. I was under the impression that they accept some form of perseverance but deny the theology behind what is now popularly referred to as OSAS.

Thank you for the clarification. It is my understanding that Lutherans do hold to a concept of perseverance, but that salvation is not denied to those who do not persevere, but who have been baptized. There is a great stress upon the efficacy of the sacraments, especially that of baptism.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

...But for Protestants who believe in OSAS, the doctrine of mortal sin apparently diminishes certitude because it introduces the possibility of damnation after justification. The relation of the doctrine of mortal sin to certitude differs depending on where you are coming from.

On the other hand, the conundrum for the Protestant has always been salvation, not perseverance. That is, they tend to agree together that once one is saved, they will always persevere, but there is very often a subjective uncertainty about whether I am saved...

A key tenet of those who believe OSAS (myself included) is that a professed believer with a lifestyle characterized by sin is not evidence that a person has lost their salvation. It is evidence they never were saved in the first place. I believe Matthew 7:23 supports this. Here, Jesus didn't say He will declare to them "Depart from me, for I once knew you but no longer do." Instead, the declaration will be that He never knew them.

What I often see in Christendom is where people will say X is sin when their scriptural support for this assertion is tenuous at best. I've seen and heard people ask things like "is listening to secular music a sin?" or "is watching Game of Thrones sin?" So unless there is some clear moral principle being violated, I do not presume that X is sin.

It is possible to be a mature spirit-filled believer and have a lifestyle that looks very different than most believers. But it is not possible to be one and have a lifestyle characterized by sin and evil.

 

[bbbbbbb]

A key tenet of those who believe OSAS (myself included) is that a professed believer with a lifestyle characterized by sin is not evidence that a person has lost their salvation. It is evidence they never were saved in the first place. I believe Matthew 7:23 supports this. Here, Jesus didn't say He will declare to them "Depart from me, for I once knew you but no longer do." Instead, the declaration will be that He never knew them.

What I often see in Christendom is where people will say X is sin when their scriptural support for this assertion is tenuous at best. I've seen and heard people ask things like "is listening to secular music a sin?" or "is watching Game of Thrones sin?" So unless there is some clear moral principle being violated, I do not presume that X is sin.

It is possible to be a mature spirit-filled believer and have a lifestyle that looks very different than most believers. But it is not possible to be one and have a lifestyle characterized by sin and evil.

Also, strongly supporting OSAS, we have -

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

 

[dms1972]

That is my understanding. There is absolutely no possibility that a member of the Catholic Church can be in the least bit certain that they will be saved and enter into the joy of heaven.

As I understand it for Catholics this were the theological virtue of Hope comes in. One is still in the status viatoris, one hasn't arrived, one is a pilgrim on the way. Hope is opposed to despair on the one hand and presumption on the other. I get this from reading Josef Pieper book On Hope.

I think though with every thelogian there are one-sided and popular versions of what they taught, that fail to take all they said into account.

 

[Valletta]

As I understand it for Catholics this were the theological virtue of Hope comes in. One is still in the status viatoris, one hasn't arrived, one is a pilgrim on the way. Hope is opposed to despair on the one hand and presumption on the other. I get this from reading Josef Pieper book On Hope.

"Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. 'Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful' (Heb. 10:23). 'The Holy Spirit . . . he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life'" (Titus 3:6-7; Catechism of the Catholic Chuch 1817).

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There are multitudes of baptized Catholics who routinely commit the mortal sin of skipping mass. They don't seem to have much, if any, concern about it. However, on the positive side, they are not fretting much about their assurance of salvation either.

Salvation is from the leader, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not from the followers or those that claim to be.
So what if there are those that attend Catholic Mass that do not believe? That does not nullify the teaching. If it did all I would have to do is start attending Protestant services and heckle the preacher. By your reasoning, he would be nullified. But that is not the case in the Catholic Church. The teaching is the seed, and our Lord gives the parable of the sower. Some of the seed falls on the path, some on rock, some among thorns, and some in good soil. The fact that the seed does not germinate wherever it falls is not due to the quality of the seed.
A catholic is obligated to believe with full faith all of the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Those that do not are not in full communion and by reason are not obedient to Christ. They may have a doubtful conscience as I once did. I found a teaching to be absurd and asked for clarification but found none. I continued with doubt, but still wanted answers, and God in His infinite mercy showed me my error. I am not worthy to take another breath, but by His grace I do, and I now do it with the full knowledge that there is not one false teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[dms1972]

-

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Catholics do believe in Once saved always saved. The thing is we are not saved until we reach heaven. During our time on Earth, we still have free will. We can choose to follow Jesus, or we can gratify our flesh. God does know those that are His, but we don’t.
The Bible is clear, be faithful unto death and I will give you a crown of life. He who endures to the end will be saved. It does not say mouth my name once and it doesn’t matter how much you sin afterward. It even says the opposite, not everyone that says to me Lord Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven.
The commandments and the teaching of the Church are guides for our conscience. Line our behavior up with those, receive the sacraments, ask God for the grace of perseverance, and we will see heaven as He promised

 

[zippy2006]

A key tenet of those who believe OSAS (myself included) is that a professed believer with a lifestyle characterized by sin is not evidence that a person has lost their salvation. It is evidence they never were saved in the first place. I believe Matthew 7:23 supports this. Here, Jesus didn't say He will declare to them "Depart from me, for I once knew you but no longer do." Instead, the declaration will be that He never knew them.

What I often see in Christendom is where people will say X is sin when their scriptural support for this assertion is tenuous at best. I've seen and heard people ask things like "is listening to secular music a sin?" or "is watching Game of Thrones sin?" So unless there is some clear moral principle being violated, I do not presume that X is sin.

It is possible to be a mature spirit-filled believer and have a lifestyle that looks very different than most believers. But it is not possible to be one and have a lifestyle characterized by sin and evil.

The difficulties which have always attended such a view are the same difficulties which are highlighted by the "No True Scotsman Fallacy." The primary difficulty here is that OSAS cannot stand if the event of "being saved" cannot be clearly identified, and as the historical Protestant debates show, the event of "being saved" cannot be clearly identified. Since it cannot be identified, the assurance which was sought is in fact not obtained.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The difficulties which have always attended such a view are the same difficulties which are highlighted by the "No True Scotsman Fallacy." The primary difficulty here is that OSAS cannot stand if the event of "being saved" cannot be clearly identified, and as the historical Protestant debates show, the event of "being saved" cannot be clearly identified. Since it cannot be identified, the assurance which was sought is in fact not obtained.

We need to remember and contemplate the parable of the seed. Jesus shows us what happens in preaching. The ones on the path disbelieve it, because the enemy has taken it from them. The ones on rock act like they are saved but turn away under adversity. The thorns slowly have the word choked out of them. It is only those on good soil that bring forth fruit unto eternal life.
No where does Jesus say that those on rock or among thorns are saved. In all His preaching it’s those that endure and are faithful unto death that get a crown of life.
None of us can say we are saved until we reach heaven: we have hope if we continue in well doing that we will win the race and receive the crown, but here on earth we are in spiritual combat.
Our enemy uses all tricks to get us to turn from the narrow path and straight gate and take the broad road to destruction

 

[FredVB]

The unrepentant are not believers. If they say they are, they will quit. No salvation is lost that way, they never had it. Real believers have repentance, Yahweh seals them and they have salvation and everlasting life with that, the repentant believers will not quit from their faith and being in Christ who secures them. What we do still matters, for needed spiritual growth.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholics do believe in Once saved always saved. The thing is we are not saved until we reach heaven. During our time on Earth, we still have free will.

I sympathize with your point of view since I also believe we have free will -- but I think it adds confusion to call that "we also believe in once-saved-always saved" since all Christians (both Calvinists and non-Calvinists) agree that once people get to heaven they don't become lost at a later point in time.

 

[BobRyan]

Rom 3:23 "All have sinned" -- and yet Jesus did not sin... so is that teaching in vs 23 "Self refuting"?

More than that - we see the sola scriptura test being witnessed in scripture in Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 and Is 8:20.
So it is scripture itself proclaiming the sola scriptura teaching...

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

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

What do you think?

The texts above show scripture affirming sola scriptura testing.

Christ does it in Mark 7:6-13
And Luke affirms non-Christians who do it when testing Paul in Acts 17:11

scripture affirms it - this is irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, but they, the Bereans, could not discern the meaning of Scripture-going by Scriupture alone. They required the input of a certain group of people, the church,

You are skimming past too many details in Acts 17:11

1. Their own magisterium was on record as condemning the teaching of Paul -- yet STILL they chose to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were so" - rather than "listen to your own magesterium and your own traditions and let that guide you to ignore whatever scripture says that confirms Paul's teaching".

2. Paul was not telling them what scripture is or redefining scripture or saying "don't believe scripture - believe me instead" or anything of that sort. So they only had scripture and their own magesterium guiding them when the Holy Spirit lead them to hear Paul. They decided to let the Holy Spirit guide their understanding of their own scriptures and "see if" those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were so.

 

[BobRyan]

The scripture Timothy knew from his youth is the Tanakh. The Tanakh is what Paul is referencing.

true - Paul quotes from other OT texts calling them all scripture.

All the Law AND the Prophets - called "all of scripture" in Luke 24 and in Matt 22

 

[BobRyan]

Since you seemed to object to the word "you" that was used in John 14:26 to mean individuals Sola Scriptura Self-refuting? when Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those who obey. His commandments John 14:15-18 and the Spirit will teach us all things, which is a promise of Jesus for those who are seeking Truth and to those who obey Acts 5:32, The Spirit will also convict one of their sins which will hopefully lead one to repentance and a changed heart. This is why it’s so important to have an open heart and allow the Spirit to guide and the Spirit will never guide you away from God's Word. God’s Word is Truth. Psalms 119:160


So not sure why the objection to the scripture I posted or the word "you" to mean individuals. Of course the Holy Spirit guides individuals and His church. We probably have a different definition of His church though.


You are not making an argument I am making here.

Where is that in scripture? My pastor was an atheist living in a cave that someone left the Holy Bible. Reading the Bible alone led Him to Christ and a complete lifestyle change and he now has a very fruitful ministry that has reached people across the world, so I think the Holy Spirit can reach anyone, regardless where they are as long as they have an open heart to hearing God’s Truth.

amen

 

[BobRyan]

IF you are indeed taught all truth by God and your brother is also taught all truth you would think there would be no disputes to resolve.

You assume all Christians are at the same level of understanding if they are taught truth by the Bible. That seems like an odd assumption.

I'm saying there is something wrong if you can't, something wrong with your understanding that you are infallible in your understanding of the truths

A child does not have to be "infallible" to go to first grade and then second and then third...

 

[chevyontheriver]

You assume all Christians are at the same level of understanding if they are taught truth by the Bible. That seems like an odd assumption.

Clearly not all Christians are at the same level of understanding. Point was, if Scripture was both sufficient and clear, eventually the differences various Christians have would tend to minimize. But they don't. So either Scripture is clear and sufficient but almost nobody can understand it OR Scripture needs something more than itself to be understood.

 

[fhansen]

1. Their own magisterium was on record as condemning the teaching of Paul -- yet STILL they chose to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were so" - rather than "listen to your own magesterium and your own traditions and let that guide you to ignore whatever scripture says that confirms Paul's teaching".

Their own magisterium? Paul was the magisterium, part of that group, that church, that held and conveyed the truth that the Bereans could not discern on their own, with Scripture.

2. Paul was not telling them what scripture is or redefining scripture or saying "don't believe scripture - believe me instead" or anything of that sort.

And neither does the RCC. The RCC says, believe our interpretation-or understanding-which is based on experience, on the faith as it was received at the beginning, as was Paul's, before the NT was written, incidentally.

 

[concretecamper]

Not true - Paul quotes from other OT texts calling them all scripture.

All the Law AND the Prophets - called "all of scripture" in Luke 24 and in Matt 22

Thank you for making my point