Sola Scriptura - The Bible and Logic (contra Catholics)

[Tree of Life]

Thesis: What the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

Roman Catholics claim that Scripture alone is not sufficient in order to formulate doctrine. The examples they will provide for this are the very famous and ecumenical doctrines of:

1. The Trinity
2. The Hypostatic Union (Two Natures of Christ)

These doctrines are incredibly important. They are so important, that one cannot be considered a Christian if they deny these doctrines. But we must admit that explicit formulations of these doctrines are not found in Scripture. And their technical terminology (Trinity, Hypostatic Union) is not found in Scripture either.

"Aha!" say the Catholics. "Sola Scriptura cannot be correct! Scripture does not explicitly teach these doctrines, yet they are necessary for orthodoxy." The Catholic position on this matter is that the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church is necessary in order for these doctrines to be established. They cannot stand on Scripture alone, say the Catholics. The authoritative teaching of the church is also required in order to establish these doctrines.

The problem with this view is that it is hogwarsh in the highest degree.

While these doctrines are not explicitly taught in Scripture, they are certainly implied by Scripture. Take the Trinity as an example. The Bible explicitly teaches:

1. There is one God
2. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
3. These three persons are distinct

So while the Bible does not say "Trinity", nor does it use the technical language of the Nicene Creed, it certainly says enough to imply the formulations of the Trinity. So the Trinity is certainly able to stand on Scripture alone because what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches.

Example of this Principle in Scripture
How do we know that "what the Bible implies, the Bible teaches"? We know this because the Bible says so. Take a look at how Jesus used the Bible for teaching:

Luke 6:1-5 - On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” 5 And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

In response to the Pharisees' challenge that Jesus was violating the Sabbath, he did not quote Scripture about the Sabbath. Rather, he reminded them of a story about David eating sacred bread. This story does not explicitly say that preserving human life is more important than following rituals. But the story certainly implies that this is the case. Jesus was able to start with Scripture, use logic, and reach logical inferences and deductions about what Scripture teaches.

So it's not just what Scripture explicitly says which is authoritative. What the Bible implies is also equally authoritative.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is unaffected by this Catholic criticism.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It seems to me that there is a lot of wiggle room allowed for in considering what the bible "implies". A lot of what we have come to believe we go back and assert the bible "implies" after all, many times in contradiction to what another asserts the bible "implies".

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Indeed, without the Scriptures informing those doctrines, they could not be proven to be true, and would have no basis or foundation for further thought or consideration as authoritative.

 

[Tree of Life]

It seems to me that there is a lot of wiggle room allowed for in considering what the bible "implies". A lot of what we have come to believe we go back and assert the bible "implies" after all, many times in contradiction to what another asserts the bible "implies".

Since I believe that logic is governed by laws and is typically not very flexible, I don't think there's much wiggle room. It's certainly possible to use bad logic and commit logical fallacies to wrongly arrive at what one supposes the Bible implies. This is the essence of false teaching. It can easily be shown to be incorrect by exposing the logical and exegetical flaws:

1. Exegetical flaw - They got something wrong about what the text plainly says.
2. Logical flaw - They committed a logical fallacy in getting to what they think the Bible implies.

All false teaching suffers from one or both of these flaws.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Since I believe that logic is governed by laws and is typically not very flexible, I don't think there's much wiggle room. It's certainly possible to use bad logic and commit logical fallacies to wrongly arrive at what one supposes the Bible implies. This is the essence of false teaching. It can easily be shown to be incorrect by exposing the logical and exegetical flaws:

1. Exegetical flaw - They got something wrong about what the text plainly says.
2. Logical flaw - They committed a logical fallacy in getting to what they think the Bible implies.

All false teaching suffers from one or both of these flaws.

So you are at the mercy of the man with the most silver in his tongue.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Since I believe that logic is governed by laws and is typically not very flexible, I don't think there's much wiggle room. It's certainly possible to use bad logic and commit logical fallacies to wrongly arrive at what one supposes the Bible implies. This is the essence of false teaching. It can easily be shown to be incorrect by exposing the logical and exegetical flaws:

1. Exegetical flaw - They got something wrong about what the text plainly says.
2. Logical flaw - They committed a logical fallacy in getting to what they think the Bible implies.

All false teaching suffers from one or both of these flaws.

I do like the historical-grammatical way of reading and interpreting the Scriptures: Looking at the meaning of the words in their context. This is how the Renaissance scholars worked; this is how the preachers at the Reformation presented the doctrines of the Word; this is how most, serious Bible studies in the English-speaking world either function or aspire to.

 

[faroukfarouk]

So you are at the mercy of the man with the most silver in his tongue.

No, we do need to search the Scriptures for ourselves.

Acts 2.42 is a good guideline.

 

[Tree of Life]

So you are at the mercy of the man with the most silver in his tongue.

Eloquent speakers can be a danger because they can commit logical sleight of hand. They lead you to a conclusion through eloquence or anecdote rather than through logic. This is immoral. Many are at the mercy of eloquent speakers because they don't have their powers of discernment trained.

But someone trained in discernment and logic can, by God's grace, cut down the false teaching - however adorned it is by eloquence.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Starting with a false premise can only lead to erroneous conclusions which is the road of compromise ~ tftd~

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Eloquent speakers can be a danger because they can commit logical sleight of hand. They lead you to a conclusion through eloquence rather than through logical. This is immoral. Many are at the mercy of eloquent speakers because they don't have their powers of discernment trained.

But someone trained in discernment and logic can, by God's grace, cut down the false teaching - however adorned it is by eloquence.

Look at the question of the nature of the Lord's Supper, still a bone of contention between denominations even today. It is mostly settled in people's hearts by their conformity to the tradition they keep instead of logic and scripture. Each side will tell you they are following the scriptures as you suggest they should.

Minority views can be right. Majority views can be wrong. One thing we need to do is to accept another when we disagree on things.

 

[Tree of Life]

Look at the question of the nature of the Lord's Supper, still a bone of contention between denominations even today. It is mostly settled in people's hearts by their conformity to the tradition they keep instead of logic and scripture. Each side will tell you they are following the scriptures as you suggest they should.

Minority views can be right. Majority views can be wrong. One thing we need to do is to accept another when we disagree on things.

I don't disagree with this. There are things in Scripture which are less clear - such as sacramental issues. A good example is the question of Baptism - whether or not we should baptize the children of believers. I think that Scripture implies that we should. But Baptists who are more godly than I do not believe that the Scriptures imply this at all.

We disagree and we are still brothers. This goes to show that some doctrines are weightier than others and some doctrines are more clear than others. I think that the Trinity is much more clear and weightier than this question of baptism.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Look at the question of the nature of the Lord's Supper, still a bone of contention between denominations even today. It is mostly settled in people's hearts by their conformity to the tradition they keep instead of logic and scripture. Each side will tell you they are following the scriptures as you suggest they should.

Minority views can be right. Majority views can be wrong. One thing we need to do is to accept another when we disagree on things.

We should remember also that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1.20).

 

[faroukfarouk]

I don't disagree with this. There are things in Scripture which are less clear - such as sacramental issues. A good example is the question of Baptism - whether or not we should baptize the children of believers. I think that Scripture implies that we should. But Baptists who are more godly than I do not believe that the Scriptures imply this at all.

We disagree and we are still brothers. This goes to show that some doctrines are weightier than others and some doctrines are more clear than others. I think that the Trinity is much more clear and weightier than this question of baptism.

In Acts 2.41-42 we see the order: they that gladly received his word were baptized.

 

[Tree of Life]

In Acts 2.41-42 we see the order: they that gladly received his word were baptized.

In Acts 2:39 Peter says that the promise is "for you and for your children...".

 

[faroukfarouk]

In Acts 2:39 Peter says that the promise is "for you and for your children...".

Promises are entered into by exercising faith and trust.

 

[Tree of Life]

Promises are entered into by exercising faith and trust.

Well this thread is not for discussing baptism issues. But here we see how a less weighty matter may be disagreed upon by sincere believers.

 

[Tree of Life]

Starting with a false premise can only lead to erroneous conclusions which is the road of compromise ~ tftd~

This is true. This is why we must start with the Bible in all of our theologizing. One troubling thing about Catholic theology is that they don't always start with the Bible. Sections in their catechism which are based upon Scripture (and have Scripture footnotes) are really wonderful. But it is troubling when they do pages and pages of theologizing and only reference church fathers and counsels as their foundation.

 

[royal priest]

So you are at the mercy of the man with the most silver in his tongue.

Unless you convene through councils of men of special character, spiritual discernment, and hermeneutical skill.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So you are at the mercy of the man with the most silver in his tongue.

Speaking of silver tongues how about C.H. Spurgeon? In certain circles he has been labeled the "prince of preachers" and for good reasons.

 

[Tree of Life]

So far there's no RCC or EO voices in this thread yet. Batter-up!