Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[WarriorAngel]

Keeping in mind the written is likewise God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

It's just like the chicken and egg debate.

The written even in the OT came about after the prophet and in the case of Isaiah - 200 years later.
So was he unimportant until written about.
NO - the Jewish tradition carried the truth until written

Jesus did not even 'have to follow' just the written...
He literally spoke of the CHAIR OF MOSES which is a TRADITIONAL - oral teaching - that was never written about.

So without Tradition - you only have the written. THEN we obviously do not have full knowledge in writings alone.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It's just like the chicken and egg debate.

The written even in the OT came about after the prophet and in the case of Isaiah - 200 years later.
So was he unimportant until written about.
NO - the Jewish tradition carried the truth until written

Jesus did not even 'have to follow' just the written...
He literally spoke of the CHAIR OF MOSES which is a TRADITIONAL - oral teaching - that was never written about.

So without Tradition - you only have the written. THEN we obviously do not have full knowledge in writings alone.

AND that said - there is one very important statement repeatedly in the written...

"Trust the Lord..."
"Pray to not be tested..."

Jesus established ONE Church.
He gave one steward as rock.
Since he made a chair of that Rock, it makes sense to trust Jesus.
Not the many interpretations by those who were not His Rock.

So if you are told to trust Him, why settle for anyone elses church?

 

[Zceptre]

I hate to burst anyone's philosophical gymnastics bubble..

But there is no chicken and egg debate for a Christian.

It says nothing in the Bible about God creating eggs. lol

Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Chickens were first.

Thanks. That's all.

 

[Aaron112]

Of course. . .who else but the early Christians could make such a call?

Today, a little child trusting Jesus, when the Creator YHVH Reveals as He Is Pleased To Do.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I hate to burst anyone's philosophical gymnastics bubble..

But there is no chicken and egg debate for a Christian.

It says nothing in the Bible about God creating eggs. lol

Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Chickens were first.

Thanks. That's all.

EXACTLY.

How can we debate the 'egg' came first..?

The writing came secondary by the request of the Church BISHOPS.

The epistles were replies to the Bishops.
The writing of the Gospels - because the Bishops 'requested' it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course. . .who else but the early Christians could make such a call?

However, some of those books are not recognized as God-breathed by a large number of Christians,
and I can see why, for all but one of the books of the Apocrypha is inferior to the majesty and quality of the rest of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16).

I was speaking only of the New Testament canon, which was agreed upon by all ancient churches. The early church never agreed on a single Old Testament canon, although the early church did agree not to use the 66 book canon of the Masoretic Text, interestingly enough. The differences between Old Testament canons accepted by the early church is mostly minor except in the case of the Ethiopian church, which had several addition books in its Ge’ez Old Testament library which it trusted, and this has never been an issue within the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Interestingly several books rejected by those who accept the New Testament canon of St. Athana

 

[The Liturgist]

EXACTLY.

How can we debate the 'egg' came first..?

The writing came secondary by the request of the Church BISHOPS.

The epistles were replies to the Bishops.
The writing of the Gospels - because the Bishops 'requested' it.

Indeed. The 12 Apostles and then the 70 Apostles and St. Paul constituted the first generation of Bishops. For example St. Thomas established the Church in Edessa, Nineveh, Seleucia-Cstesiphon, Basra and Kerala, India, and was succeeded by his disciples from the 70 Saints Addai and Mari, and St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and Rome, and in Antioch was succeeded by St. Evodius and St. Ignatius the Martyr, and in Rome by St. Linus and then St. Clement.

 

[Clare73]

I was speaking only of the New Testament canon, which was agreed upon by all ancient churches.

Oops! . . .sorry about that!

The early church never agreed on a single Old Testament canon, although the early church did agree not to use the 66 book canon of the Masoretic Text, interestingly enough. The differences between Old Testament canons accepted by the early church is mostly minor except in the case of the Ethiopian church, which had several addition books in its Ge’ez Old Testament library which it trusted, and this has never been an issue within the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Interestingly several books rejected by those who accept the New Testament canon of St. Athana

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

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?

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!

Just the opposite. I have a frind who constantly referes to 2 Timothy 3:16 "all scripture is God breathed" But that is scripture. So it is circular, begs the question. It assume the truth of its own statement.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Before Moses wrote scriptures, he led the people out of Egypt.
He created by the Lords hand - Israel.


Before the Apostles wrote scriptures, they preached.
They ordained men to be Bishops - who in turn asked for the Gospels to be written down.
Asked for replies to letters sent to Apostles - with questions on what was already preached.

None of the Apostles rewrote what was preached, but eluding to it they further reiterated the meaning per the questions.

The Church came first.

 

[David Lamb]

Before Moses wrote scriptures, he led the people out of Egypt.
He created by the Lords hand - Israel.


Before the Apostles wrote scriptures, they preached.
They ordained men to be Bishops - who in turn asked for the Gospels to be written down.

How do you know that the bishops/overseers asked for the gospels to be written down? Luke starts his gospel:

“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” (Lu 1:1-4 NKJV)

No hint there that he was writing in response to a request from anyone. John explains his reason for writing:

“And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Joh 20:30-31 NKJV)

Again, no idea there that anyone had requested him to write. As far as I know, Matthew and Mark don't mention why they wrote.

 

[WarriorAngel]

All writings are kept.

The Church via council of Hippo declared the Holy Canon not yet called Bible and the Pope said it was to be believed.

Tradition has declared the Bible true of all the writings from all the Churches to be put into one canon and read in all Churches.

Tradition and the Church came first and for the Church they wrote.

Luke was a writer who followed Paul.
Neither original Apostles.
The Bishops were the enquirer of the Gospels.

It is self evident that the Holy Spirit worked in the Church and Tradition.

Years passed before they wrote anything.
Timothy was a Bishop.

St. Paul always addressed the Church of the area.

He frequently spoke about what he already taught orally and was answering the questions.

Tradition knows the era.
The culture and the history.

 

[Clare73]

All writings are kept.
The Church via council of Hippo declared the Holy Canon not yet called Bible and the Pope said it was to be believed.
Tradition has declared the Bible true of all the writings from all the Churches to be put into one canon and read in all Churches.
Tradition and the Church came first and for the Church they wrote.
Luke was a writer who followed Paul.
Neither original Apostles.

Paul was an apostle sent by Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1).

No apostle is more original than that.

 

[David Lamb]

All writings are kept.

The Church via council of Hippo declared the Holy Canon not yet called Bible and the Pope said it was to be believed.

Tradition has declared the Bible true of all the writings from all the Churches to be put into one canon and read in all Churches.

Tradition and the Church came first and for the Church they wrote.

Luke was a writer who followed Paul.
Neither original Apostles.
The Bishops were the enquirer of the Gospels.

It is self evident that the Holy Spirit worked in the Church and Tradition.

Years passed before they wrote anything.
Timothy was a Bishop.

St. Paul always addressed the Church of the area.

He frequently spoke about what he already taught orally and was answering the questions.

Tradition knows the era.
The culture and the history.

I am not sure if your post was an answer to mine. If it was, you still have given no indication from God's word that the gospels were written in response to request from bishops. Luke specifically says that it seemed good to him to write it. John says he wrote in order that his readers might believe.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Paul was an apostle sent by Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1).

No apostle is more original than that.

But Paul did not create his own theology.
He went to Peter.

He sought approval and a “commission” so to speak. That shows the authority of St. Peter and is quite consistent with the idea that he was the pope, because of the language. St. Paul specifically went to Jerusalem to see and “confer” with Peter: because he was the leader of the apostolic Church, and spent 15 days with him.

 

[David Lamb]

But Paul did not create his own theology.
He went to Peter.

He sought approval and a “commission” so to speak. That shows the authority of St. Peter and is quite consistent with the idea that he was the pope, because of the language. St. Paul specifically went to Jerusalem to see and “confer” with Peter: because he was the leader of the apostolic Church, and spent 15 days with him.

Where do you see in the bible that Paul sought a commission and approval from Peter? We are simply told:

“And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought [him] to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.” (Ac 9:26-28 NKJV)

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” (Ga 1:18-19 NKJV)

Saul's/Paul's commissioning was from Jesus Christ Himself:

“Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),” (Ga 1:1 NKJV)

“For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.” (Ga 1:10-11 NKJV)

 

[WarriorAngel]

Like Philip asking the eunuch if he understood scripture and he said how can I without a teacher??

That said here’s a facebook reel.

Note; call no one a teacher?
Yet Philip was sent as a teacher??

The fact is teachers come before the written

7.4K views · 2K reactions | Is it forbidden to call people “Father”? | Casey Cole, OFM

Is it forbidden to call people “Father”?.

www.facebook.com

 

[WarriorAngel]

I could write anything I want but if I’m not teaching it right then people could misunderstand.

Shakespeare is an excellent analogy of why knowledge of culture and language is utterly essential.

If nobody kept traditional knowledge of the period it would take on an entirely different meaning as eras change.

Romeo where for art thou.
She’s not asking where he is but why he was born into a family at odds with hers.

So nobody can say that they have the ability to understand without traditional understanding

 

[Clare73]

But Paul did not create his own theology.
He went to Peter.

He sought approval and a “commission” so to speak. That shows the authority of St. Peter and is quite consistent with the idea that he was the pope, because of the language. St. Paul specifically went to Jerusalem to see and “confer” with Peter: because he was the leader of the apostolic Church, and spent 15 days with him.

Read that account again. . .

 

[WarriorAngel]

87K views · 12K reactions | Why Protestantism Doesn’t Work ☝️ | Voice of Reason ☦️

Why Protestantism Doesn’t Work ☝️.

www.facebook.com