Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Instead of attacking my motive or bias (which is pretty evident and something I don't hide) and pretending you are above everything else pure in your reading to the bible (which I don't believe is true of anyone), why not address what I'm actually saying?

Click to expand...

Bob doesn't actually address anyone's arguments. He just misrepresents them while reasserting his own assumptions. Great fun, isn't it?

BobRyan said:

Hold on there.

1. Sola Scriptura is exactly what we expect to be used to debunk false Messiahs. What was the "other option"??? --- just "making stuff up"??

Click to expand...

Why are you convinced that Scripture is the ONLY way to detect false doctrine. Why not the Inward Witness, given that feelings of certainty are authoritative? Consider 1John 2:20-21:

"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.e 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth....As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him

John was speaking about detecting antichrists and false doctrines. Sure if you currently don't have a strong feeling of certainty, you can fallback on Scripture, prayer, counselors (etc) to strengthen it. But generally we detect cults insofar as they contradict feelings of certainty already existing within us in virtue of the Inward Witness.

You conveniently cite verses supporting your position while glossing over those that contradict or challenge it. For example every verse in the NT that even ALLUDES to prophets, prophecy, or direct revelation is a serious challenge to your assumption that exegesis is the ONLY authority - and I can probably cite HUNDREDS of them. As mentioned earlier (along with a link), I did a substantive defense of prophecy on another thread. I won't likely repeat all that material here but it decisively refutes your bible-only assumptions.

2. Acts 17:11 and the others - are devastating to the argument against sola scriptura -- the very details in the text that your post does not address... are key.

Click to expand...

Yes absolutely devastating, if we ignore about 25% of the New Testament. Agreed.

BobRyan said:

You are making an appeal to "making stuff up" each time the Bible says "scripture" was the rule in Acts 17:4-5 in Acts 17:11 in Luke 24... this is "the easy part".

Click to expand...

A Hypothetical is not “making stuff up” no matter how much you protest otherwise. It is a reasonable question to ask whether the Bereans or anyone would be justified in rejecting the Gospel if they concluded from the Old Testament Jesus was not truly the Christ (as a great many Jews did). Your absolute refusal to deal with this problem demonstrates to me at any rate you have no answer other than to repeat what you have previously said. I have not denied that the Bereans read the bible and confirmed from it Christ was who he said, rather my point is that it is not the sole justification for the Bereans and that if they would have been wrong to reject him on the basis of scripture, we should conclude the bible is not the sole final rule of faith.

BobRyan said:

Circular logic much??


When someone "met" the carpenter from Nazareth what would be their "guide"??? Making stuff up is not the most dependable rule to use. How about an objective standard? As Jesus told them to do it.


Luke 24

24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see.” 25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.


Jesus did not go around as you seem to suppose to yourself - and say "whatever I make up ... well that is what you will believe... because the Bible is not trustworthy for things like this".


That example in Luke 24 is a point where Jesus is STILL disguising Himself so they WON'T do exactly what you seem to argue they should do in terms of "proving the point". He wants them to rely instead on "Sola Scriptura" testing.

Click to expand...

How exactly am I arguing in a circle? Jesus encountered many Pharisees whom were convinced that Christ was going against the written Torah and to a certain degree he was, undermining their literal application of it by strengthening the moral force of it. Whereas the Torah declared it was a sin to commit adultery, Christ told us it is a sin to merely look at a woman with lust an explanation of which goes beyond the written word. Now if Sola Scriptura is the eternal standard and Christ’s words must be subjugated tot eh Old Testament, the Pharisees if they rejected Christ’s interpretation of the Old would have been justified listening to the literal words of Torah, rather than Christ’s. As Christians however we know that the Lord was authoritative in of himself. Christ’s using of the Old Testament is not a demonstration of Sola Scriptura because he himself was authoritative! In your defence of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I dare say you have forgotten Sola Christus.

[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 71942673, member: 235244] Utter nonsense. You are ignoring almost every detail in the texts and even Christ's own teaching to cling to the imaginative narrative you have going there. But that is hardly an objective unbiased argument -- why not address the actual facts in evidence from scripture??? [/QUOTE]


Instead of telling me that my argument is utter nonsense, why not demonstrate what I have said to be ‘utter nonsense.’ If my reading of your argument (that I think you consider Christ to be dependent on the law for his authority) is wrong tell me how. An appeal to how bias I am is not argument but to state the obvious, that I, like all people am bias. That being said I have been addressing the scripture with regards to this one verse from acts because I know it to be central to the argument of Sola Scriptura.

[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 71942673, member: 235244] Utter Another stellar example of a circular argument? Is there any end???''

How pray tell - is "A Christian" not ALREADY convinced of Christ -- "by definition"??.

don't you mean "a non-Christian"?? one who has YET to be convinced if Christ?? [/QUOTE]

What is exactly circular about my argument? With regards to what I said, I obviously meant a Christian who was convinced of Christ without appeals to the Old Testament. If you are going to be so uncharitable as to ignore my intended meaning I am not sure how long this discussion can go on for. Needless to say you have not addressed my point here. Do all peoples need to be educated in the Torah first and then hear about Christ in order to believe in him? Or do Christians start from the premise that God came down in the Flesh as Jesus for the sake of world, explaining the history past and future from that central point in human history? If it be the case that knowledge of Christ is all that is necessary, what does that say as to the law? Is Christ utterly dependant on it for his justification? Can Jesus be judged by the law to be false? So says you.

[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 71942673, member: 235244] Paul argues that we should not go around "just believing whatevere someone tells you".

2 Cor 11 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Bible details matter -- sola scriptura is the "solution" the Bible tells us to accept[/QUOTE]

So, let’s assume Sola Scriptura is true. I disbelieve Sola Scriptura yet I am convinced from the bible that the passage in acts regarding the Bereans is not evidence of such a doctrine. Am justified in my belief right despite not holding to it no? That is since I am convinced by Scripture that I am correct you or no one else has any real authority to dismiss my interpretation no?

Also I never said go around and believe whatever someone tells you. That’s a gross mischaracterization of my own ideas. I do believe in willing submission, that God has given us leaders and authorities we ought to listen to even if we aren’t convinced by them and this should be evident because of the Apostles themselves. The Galatians should have listened to Paul as the Corinthians should have. This does not mean submission to authorities is always necessary, such as when Peter would not eat with Gentiles and needed Paul to rebuke him. It’s not one or the other.

BobRyan said:

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

[There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

Click to expand...

Sola scripture:

Sin is the transgression of the law 1John 3:4

Therefore, if you observe the law you don't commit sin, if you fail to observe the law you do commit sin:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous/justified in God’s sight by observing the law/not committing sin, rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Rom3:20


So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Rom 7:4-6

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean
Rom 14:14

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble
Rom 14:20

Do I hear a hearty AMEN to the sola scripture quoted?

BobRyan, Got a question for you. Why do you believe the Bible is from God? Please don't tell me, "Because the Bible says so". The Koran says so too, as does the Book of Mormon, and many other writings, books, oral prophecies, and written prophecies spanning the history of the human race.

Suppose you respond, "I believe the Bible is inspired because I did the research. I researched history and, from there, deduced that the Bible is God's word." This suggests two authorities:
(1) History writers.
(2) Your own deductive powers
but both of these authorities contradict the assumption that Scripture is the ONLY authority.

Or perhaps a third authority convinced you that Scripture is God's Word.
(3) The Inward Witness (i.e. some kind of direct revelation) experienced as a feeling of certainty (experienced as the voice of conscience)

No matter which one of these three authorities was the decisive factor (the final authority in your decision to accept the Bible and/or Christ), it contradicts your assumption that exegesis is the only authority.

So please tell me on what basis/authority you accept the Bible as God's Word, and/or Christ as Lord. (I can already predict that you'll play dodgeball again).

BobRyan said:

2 Tim 3:16 says it is from God.
2 Peter 1:19-21 says it is from God
Hebrews 3 prefixes scripture by saying "the Holy Spirit says" (as do many other texts) -- and then quotes the OT.

Click to expand...

Seriously? On that logic, shouldn't we therefore accept any oral or written prophecy that makes similar claims, touting itself to be from God?

I mean, if that's all it takes.

I wouldn't tell you "Because the Bible says so" if I rejected the Bible teaching of sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

Not sure what your major point there was.

You need to talk to more atheists and evolutionists that converted to Christianity. For example "Walter Veith" - they will tell you that the first thing that convinced them is the supernatural accuracy of the Bible. For example in predicting over 2000 years of world history in Daniel 2, 7 and 8. Not just the 490 years of the future predicted in Daniel 9.

Click to expand...

Ok that's another possible authority:
(4) A feeling of certainty underpinned by scientific evidence.
Ok, but if you agree with that basis/authority, you've just confirmed that exegesis is NOT the only authority in matters of religion.

That would be like me saying you are an authority over the scientific study of physics - since one day you happened to agree to one single thing you read in a physics text book.
As we both know -- as we all know -- in real life - that is utter nonsense. You are using an argument in a religious context that we both know is utter nonsense in real life.

Click to expand...

Bob I wasn't drawing any conclusions about authority in that last post. I was asking YOU what YOUR authority/basis was. It wasn't an argument (and therefore can't be 'utter nonsense'). It was a question.

So what we're left with is a totally irrational position summarized like this, "I accept the Bible as the only authority because the Bible claims to be from God." That's what you just said, right?

The problem is that such a totally irrational position is not a satisfactory defense of Sola Scriptura. Since you're speaking 'utter nonsense' (to use your own phrase), we cannot take your conclusions seriously. Looks like I'm about done here.

BobRyan said:

I do like your optimism ... but your statement is self-conflicted on the face of it. It is expressed in the form of a contradiction.

You read the detail in Acts 17:11 that is so devastating to the argument against Sola Scriptura and simply ask that we "not look at the detail" but rather look at scenario you simply make up for Acts 17:11 instead.

Why keep doing that??

Click to expand...

Do you even see your response to my argument? It isn't to offer a rebuttal to my points it is to suggest that I am ignoring what you are saying. What is self-contradictory about what I am saying? What is particularly circular in my logic? You are throwing out accusations of fallacies but not demonstrating them to be such.

Why keep doing that??

BobRyan said:

A great many were refusing to follow false Messiahs in the first century - because they happened to know a think or two from scripture - as to what the Messiah would be.

Exactly my point. Where they therefore justified according to your understanding of Sola Scriptura? If the individual is to judge Christ by the Old Testament alone and finds him wanting, is not that individual justified?

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Utter nonsense. I have shown you that the very thing you claim would be horrible "detecting a false messiah via the method of sola scriptura testing" was in fact being done. Scripture affirming the TRUE Messiah and exposing the false ones.

This is the incredibly easy... and obvious part.

And what does Christ do in Luke 24?

============================

When someone "met" the carpenter from Nazareth what would be their "guide"??? Making stuff up is not the most dependable rule to use. How about an objective standard? As Jesus told them to do it.

Luke 24
24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see.” 25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Jesus did not go around as you seem to suppose to yourself - and say "whatever I make up ... well that is what you will believe... because the Bible is not trustworthy for things like this".

That example in Luke 24 is a point where Jesus is STILL disguising Himself so they WON'T do exactly what you seem to argue they should do in terms of "proving the point". He wants them to rely instead on "Sola Scriptura" testing.

Click to expand...

Again, i never said Jesus went around saying "Hey believe me because I say so!" That's your false interpretation of my own argument. Jesus went around arguing in various ways in order to demonstrate his Messiaship, he performed miracles, he taught, he appealed to the bible, but most important of all he was simply himself, that is to say he was God almighty whom does not derive his legitimacy from a text but in the very essence of his being.

To conclude from Christ's appeals to the bible being evidence of Sola Scriptura, that Jesus himself practised it (what Reformer or Protestant actually believes Christ was not in of himself authoritative?) is not a reasonable argument. The Orthodox liturgy appeals to the bible, does it mean that we believe in Sola Scriptura? Ireneaus appealed to the bible but does that mean he believed in Sola Scriptura? Rather what it shows is that scripture is a normative authority for believers which I would never deny. What I am denying is the inference that Jesus' authority depended on the scripture and was not rather derived from himself. I would say that of the Prophets, they derived their authority from the revelations they received and from the bible but they could not do the sorts of things Christ did.

I already gave an example regarding how Jesus reinterpreted to law, something to which you have no response since if Sola Scriptura is to be applied here, people would be justified in preferring the literal sense of the law to Jesus' interpretation and expansion of it. (For instance Jesus made not just murder itself a sin but anger against our brothers/sisters a sin in of itself).

Do you really believe Jesus, the word of God, is less than the law and derives his authority from it?

BobRyan said:

That does not make any sense.

It is very common in both OT and NT for God to give revelation on one point that is then expanded on with more detail by more revelation later. In John 16 "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now".

You are bending even the most simple and obvious concept into a sort of hacked sideways slam at trusting the Bible as the standard of doctrine - and the result is that your statements tend to be self-conflicted and the logic is flawed to a level that all can see when compared to the more simple and direct solution.



God is the authority from which scripture derives its worth - God is not at war with His Word... rather He is the Author of it.

Both-AND ... not either-OR

"If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15 ...
"Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" Exodus 20:6
"He who hears these WORDS of Mine and does them is like a man who built his house upon a Rock" Matthew 7
"Man does not live by bread alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God" Matt 4

Click to expand...

You keep accusing me of logical flaws and inconsistencies but where are they? My disagreement with you is not evidence of a lack of logic or reasoning, you are not so special as to be the arbiter of reason in this discussion. Show me and others how I have committed such flaws or simply stop acusing me of them.

I would also suggest that this concept of Sola Scriptura being so simple, so plain and so obvious, might be flawed when you consider it took till the reformation until we had a working definition of it contra or mitigating tradition. It might benefit you, if you want to convince me that I am wrong, to consider that I do not see it as obvious, to treat others like they have ideas of their own, instead of just insisting that we are ignoring the obvious.

I agree God is not at war with himself and if that statement is true this implies a level of authority in God that does not compare with other authorities. For instance, the living Christ being the word of God is more authoritative than anything on earth no? So what does this mean when the Old Testament is used to confirm Christ? I am looking at it from Christ being revealed in the Old Testament, that Christ was always there and he does not need his approval from individuals reading and determining for themselves from the bible alone that he is who he claimed to be. You seem to be looking at the Bereans as if they could judge the legitimacy of Christ by the bible and use that as a demonstration of what Christians should do today. The Problem is no one does this apart from converts from Judaism, whereas we whom were not Jews start from Christ and work our way backwards. There is a Christological emphasis here that I'm not sure of your opinion about it.

Your referencing to other scriptures as if they were obviously in favour of Sola Scriptura is not convincing, since I do not understand them from that or your framework and I don't want to get bogged down by explaining how I interpret each and every verse which would lead us away from my main ideas concerning the Bereans.

This is not really much of a discussion on your part, its more or less accusations without any basis behind them. Keep to your ideas, but don't assume we all think the same way or that you yourself can't possibly learn more. If you're interested in Orthodox opinions concerning Sola Scriptura look up the blogs Orthodox Christianity (Craig Truglia) and Orthodox Bridge (Robert Arakaki). Understand that I do not have my ideas out of a wilful blindness to the bible or Protestant arguments but out a serious engagement with them.

BobRyan said:

We should if - just as the Apostle Paul was tested in Acts 17:11 -- scripture approves it.

Click to expand...

You're citing Scripture but you haven't yet provided a rational basis/authority for accepting Scripture.

No I point out that it is utter nonsense in real life to hold yourself up as an "authority in Physics" simply because you happen to agree with some detail in a Physics text book.

This in incredibly obvious to all of us.



I was pointing that you are conflating authority with the "mechanism for reading and understanding plain text".

Your statements are constructed in such a way when using the conflated idea of "authority" such that you become "an authority" in every branch of science, every form of art or music - as soon as you read text and agree to one single statement in those areas.

And that is not logical...

Click to expand...

I wasn't using the term authority in the sense of whether you're an expert in secular or religious matters. I'm simply asking what your basis/authority is for accepting the Bible. For example if you say, "My basis is deductive reasoning", I'm not assuming you're an expert at it, rather I'm just arguing that, in that case, exegesis isn't your only authority.

BobRyan, by the way you could fire the following challenge back at me, "On what basis do you accept certainty/conscience as your highest authority?"

Because it seems to be a tautological, unavoidable, inescapable conclusion since 'certainty' and 'belief' are really the same thing. Thus I believe the Bible is inspired precisely because I have a belief/certainty about it that I cannot seem to dislodge. I'm stuck with it. Even if I try to disbelieve it, I seem to fail, and moreover my conscience (my sense of moral obligation) tells me not to disbelieve it.

The doctrine of conscience is essentially the tautology, "I do in fact currently believe, and MUST currently believe, that which I currently feel certain about.

To suggest that there's an even HIGHER authority would be to postulate an authority which can override that current belief, that is, an authority which would cause me to be in the following situation, "I do NOT currently believe what I feel certain about." But since this would be a contradiction, I can have no optimism of discovering such a higher authority.

In a nutshell, I accept conscience as the highest possible authority governing my life, not really because I can 'prove' it but because so far, any attempt to avoid this conclusion seems to lead to contradictions. It thus seems unavoidable (unlike most alternative theories). Were that to change, were I somehow able to avoid it and even find a more plausible candidate for 'highest authority', then my position would change.

That's the 'technical' version of my position. A more laymen's-terms defense of it is to simply reflect on all the scenarios I've painted in this thread and see for yourself that any attempt to deny the authority of conscience would seem to contradict them all.

Unfortunately certainty isn't usually at 100% (until God appoints you to be a prophet). Until then, I'm morally obligated to whatever I feel MOST certain about (even if what I'm most certain about is the need to wait on God for more certainty).

The term "SOLA SCRIPTURA" (SS) is a pretty Latin phrase used by the RCC to argue more easily against ONE point in the "Five SOLA'S" of the Reformation.

SEE:

The Five Solas - Points from the Past that Should Matter to You

SS is a MISS-NOMER!

The true issue is "SCRIPTURA SUPREMA"...which of the following should be SUPREME if there is clear and irreconcilable differences in true doctrine among:
1. Scripture: the "word of God"
2. RCC Papal Magisterium
3. RCC Sacred Tradition of early "CHURCH" writers

The latter two are the fallible doctrines of Man.

A. BIBLE BASED BELIEFS...My Christian VIEWS:

1. The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts...
the "litmus paper" test because it alone contains principles of ABSOLUTE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS.

2. All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit- Inspired", and "superintended". God the Holy Spirit
communicated with the spirits and souls of Man which resulted in verbal and written "history".

3. The ~40 authors and their scribes recorded these ACTUAL WORDS in "original manuscripts" (MSS)
which were without error. They were meticulously copied, cross checked, and verified.

4. Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that The Bible is the Tri-Une God's supreme way of "speaking" to Man...who was created in God's SPIRITUAL image.

5. The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times
to New Testament times because of the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Divine Messiah, The Christ, the God-Man.

6. The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer,
and it has been miraculously preserved, dictated, written, translated, and distributed, etc

7. The HARMONY and TRUTH of the words of the Bible
far outweigh any perceived inconsistencies or inconseqential misconceptions

B> New Testament TESTS: Authenticity and Authority for the "GOOD NEWS".

The first passing: all 27 books were accepted by the Council of Carthage, ~397 AD.
There are more than 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament..
..the best attested document of ALL ancient writings.
There are numerous fragments dating from ~135 -800 AD written on papyrus.
There are hundreds of accurate parchment copies produced in the 4th-5th centuries.
There are ~86,000 quotations in old Latin, Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian translations
from the 3rd century.
There is more scholarly work done on this piece of literature than any other in existence.(Ryrie 2084)

Conclusion:

The New Testament translations in ANY version have been based on copious, reliable, accurate, authentic words from ~40 authors
who were spirit inspired, authorized and accepted "historians" of the truth.