The issues with Sola Scriptura

[lesliedellow]

How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

No matter what you regard as your final authority, there will, by definition, be no higher authority you can appeal to in order to validate your claim. And that goes for Catholics, with the Church as their highest authority, just as much as it does to Protestants, who regard the Bible as their highest authority.

 

[lesliedellow]

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

So you have somebody to tell you what to think, because they are supposedly infallible. Yeah sure.

 

[Albion]

That is not the import of what I wrote at all. You made a jump when you said that they were referring to OT but since the Church made NT a part of Holy Scripture, we include that too. I claimed that this is wrong, I did not said I do not believe that NT is not Scripture.

Let's try again. I'm not saying that you don't believe in the NT or that it's not Scripture. I did, however, comment on the consequences of the point you made, taking it just as you presented it. If the reference to God's revealed word applies only to the OT, but your own church declares the NT to also be part of Holy Scripture...do you then consider the action of the church to have been in error? If not, then the NT is part of Holy Scripture and the verse applies. You can't have it both ways.

It is not devolving, you asked a question which I answered. Your question was about why churches who place HT above Scripture also differ.

Very well, then let's have an answer and no three legged stool analogies. Just the answer to the question I asked.

...if it's true that many different SS denominations have different doctrines, what do we say about the suggested alternative? There are a number of different churches that utilize Holy Tradition instead of SS and...no two of them agree on doctrine although they all say they followed Tradition. If the Bible isn't good enough, the suggested remedy is even less so!

In short, give me a clear answer as to why God's word is not good enough for us? There is no Scriptural rebuttal. There is no practical rebuttal if what you are promoting in place of SS is even less definitive. So what then? And please do not say, "because my church tells me it is." Mine tells me it's not, so that approach won't get us anywhere.

 

[dqhall]

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

Jesus used his knowledge of scripture in his teachings. He also brought forth ideas that seemed strange to some of the rabbis, such as healing on the Sabbath. They opposed him for they were of the opinion healing was a form of work and all forms of work were forbidden on the Sabbath.

Paul was a studious Jew with knowledge of the Torah, Tanakh and traditions of various Jewish sects such as the Pharisees and Sadducees. When he was in Athens waiting to rendezvous with coworkers, he found an altar dedicated to an "Unknown God." He started preaching about this unknown God who raised Jesus from the dead.

One may use whatever one has available. To preach against fornication and homosexuality one might refer to HIV, hepatitis C, human papillomavirus (HPV) - a carcinogen, herpes, venereal disease and zika virus as sexually transmitted. One may also remember the incidence of babies born out of wedlock. In Africa, both men and women suffered HIV. There are a reported 11 million HIV orphaned children.

Sola Scriptura is superseded by Sola God.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The Authority angle is a carry over from when the Vatican was a world power that could kill people who had different opinions. Since this is no longer the case, the authority angle doesn't matter as much at the moment.

 

[FireDragon76]

I object to saying the Bible is identical to revelation. As would Karl Barth and numerous other modern Protestant theologians. The bible was meant to be the Church's book for proclamation of the Gospel, it only functions as revelation when used as such.

Most of the doctrines Christians hold dear are the result of historical development, and that involves interacting with some kind of church tradition.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

It was Catholic tradition because all Christians were Catholic at the time.

The books were selected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit using the Church, it wasn't just administration.

That is not true. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine made it the state religion of Rome (actually founded it as such).

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's a matter of authority. Implicitly all Christians agree that authority must exist to guide and govern a Christian's faith. Explicitly, well, obviously we disagree on what that authority should be.

For me, the turning point came when I realized Sola Scriptura was a logical dead end... for the most of the reasons iterated in the OP.

 

[thesunisout]

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

Hi Wolf,

We already have people from every other religion and belief system trying to prove what you are trying to prove. You are throwing the bible under the bus for the sake of the catholic church, not for the sake of the truth. Your presupposition is that the Catholic church has a higher authority than the word of God, then you set out to prove it, rather than honestly examining whether that is true or not.

 

[lesliedellow]

I object to saying the Bible is identical to revelation. As would Karl Barth and numerous other modern Protestant theologians.

Neo Orthodoxy has come and gone.

 

[JoeP222w]

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Not complete. It is the sole rule of faith.

The defense of SS is circular logic

Not quite. If something is the absolute source of truth, it will refer to itself because there is no higher authority onto which to refer to, or that other source would the absolute authority.

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

Not quite. There are truths found outside the Bible. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the only source of truth.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

You left out a key verse.

2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

A man cannot be "complete" or "equipped" if he does not have all the truth he needs. Scripture is complete.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

But Paul never says that traditions override or are equal to scriptures. Sola Scriptura is also not a denial of Apostolic tradition (to say it is, is a complete mischaracterization) , but Apostolic tradition comes secondary to scripture.

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

The way man misuses scripture is not a refutation of Sola Scriptura. And this same false statement can be used against Roman Catholicism. There are multiple denominations of Roman Catholicism. So using that same logic, if there are many denominations of Roman Catholicism, then there is not one true Roman Catholic church

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

• the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
• the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church
• the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
• the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
• the Chaldean Catholic Church
• the Coptic Catholic Church, and
• the Armenian Catholic Church

But the argument will probably be that those are not different denominations.

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

I would never use such an argument. There is only one truth and that is God's truth. There are no denominations in Heaven. And denomination has nothing at all to do with eternal salvation in Jesus Christ.

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

Assertion without evidence. Why is it impossible that the Bible cannot be used to interpret itself? Defend your assertion.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

As previously mentioned, this is a false claim. There are many who claim to be Christians, but are not. There are many who claim to be a denomination of Christianity but are not. This has no effect on the Holy Spirits work or the truth of scripture.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how
would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This is based on previous false assertion.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible.

No it does not. Interpretation is correctly done by examining the historical, cultural context, the language used, the setting, the principles in the passage, i.e. exegetical principles. Sola Scriptura is not you and your Bible alone in the woods, that is a Straw Man fallacy. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities in the life of the Christian. But those other authorities must come under the authority of scripture. When an external authority teaches something that is in contradiction with the Bible, the word of God is the deciding factor.

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

Again, this is a based on a false assertion that has not be proven. As mentioned previously, how man abuses scripture does not violate the authority and truth of scripture.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Nope. Error continued on your claim.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

Completely based in false hood. Christ never established a Pope. Peter never called himself the Bishop of Rome. Peter never established himself as head of the Church. Christ is the head of the Church, not fallible sinful man.

If Ignatius called it the Catholic church, he was referring to the universal body of believers, not the Roman Catholic church, and certainly not the Roman Catholic church of today that is so completely different from the Roman Catholic church that was founded around 350 AD. There is no Apostolic succession through the Popes, Anti-Popes, Popes put in place by politicial heads, the Pornacracy, multiple Popes, Popes anathemetizing other Popes, and forged documents (the Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals). Popes introducing false doctrines of the Assumption of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, that the early church fathers knew absolutely nothing of and were not developed until after about 1400 AD in response to the Reformation.

The Canon of Scripture was formed around 250 AD, long before the Roman Catholic church was even thought of. There is not one shred of evidence that the Council of Nicea had anything to do with the Canon of Scripture (you are perpetuating a myth).

God has preserved His word throughout time, not the Roman Catholic church.

 

[JoeP222w]

Yes it does.

Without tradition we wouldn't even know which books belong in the New Testament.

Please show where Rome has dogmatically defined the books of the Bible.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Not complete. It is the sole rule of faith.

I suggest you take that up then with the actual definition of the concept. That is where I pulled that from.

Not quite. If something is the absolute source of truth, it will refer to itself because there is no higher authority onto which to refer to, or that other source would the absolute authority.

I ask, who told you it is the absolute source of truth? You cannot say the Bible said it is the absolute source of truth, because if all that is needed is a book to say it is true, then I have an ocean to sell you inside the Australian Dessert. The book says it is there.

Not quite. There are truths found outside the Bible. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the only source of truth.

Actually, that is how everybody uses it now. If it is not found in the Bible, it is not true. <--- That line is all through-out these forums.

You left out a key verse.

2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

A man cannot be "complete" or "equipped" if he does not have all the truth he needs. Scripture is complete.

Once again, Paul is referencing the OT, since the NT had not been compiled into 1 place yet, and nobody knew which books were true and which were false.

But Paul never says that traditions override or are equal to scriptures. Sola Scriptura is also not a denial of Apostolic tradition (to say it is, is a complete mischaracterization) , but Apostolic tradition comes secondary to scripture.

And yet he also never stated the opposite.

The way man misuses scripture is not a refutation of Sola Scriptura. And this same false statement can be used against Roman Catholicism. There are multiple denominations of Roman Catholicism. So using that same logic, if there are many denominations of Roman Catholicism, then there is not one true Roman Catholic church

• the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
• the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church
• the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
• the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
• the Chaldean Catholic Church
• the Coptic Catholic Church, and
• the Armenian Catholic Church

But the argument will probably be that those are not different denominations.

I never said once in my OP Roman Catholic. All I said was the Catholic Church. All those other rites are in full communion with the Roman rite, aka Pope. So they make up the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the name it is most commonly given because the Pope is the bishop of Rome.
They are not different denominations, but rites. Denominations are Lutheran and Pentecostal, churches that both fall under the umbrella term for Christians, but are not connected more than that.

I would never use such an argument. There is only one truth and that is God's truth. There are no denominations in Heaven. And denomination has nothing at all to do with eternal salvation in Jesus Christ.

That does not mean that this argument is not used by defenders of SS. I have read it on these very forums a few times already, and heard it in debates. You are right, there are no denominations in Heaven. But here on earth, there are, and these churches follow SS yet differ widely in their beliefs and doctrines. If they all follow the same book, and claim SS, yet differ, something must be wrong with the concept they have in common, SS.

Assertion without evidence. Why is it impossible that the Bible cannot be used to interpret itself? Defend your assertion.

The Bible is a book, there is no way that a book can interpret itself. Interpretation falls to the reader of the book, no matter what the book is. A poem book does not interpret itself, otherwise everybody would reach the same conclusions when reading a poem. This is not the case, as shown in any lit class. Same for the Bible.

As previously mentioned, this is a false claim. There are many who claim to be Christians, but are not. There are many who claim to be a denomination of Christianity but are not. This has no effect on the Holy Spirits work or the truth of scripture.

I never said scripture was not true. I said the concept of SS is not true. It is not a false claim, because it is another argument that has been made in the defense of SS.

This is based on previous false assertion.

No, the assertion is correct and so is the logical path I took. You have not proved otherwise.

No it does not. Interpretation is correctly done by examining the historical, cultural context, the language used, the setting, the principles in the passage, i.e. exegetical principles. Sola Scriptura is not you and your Bible alone in the woods, that is a Straw Man fallacy. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities in the life of the Christian. But those other authorities must come under the authority of scripture. When an external authority teaches something that is in contradiction with the Bible, the word of God is the deciding factor.

I agree with the 2nd sentence, but the other parts of this argument do not make sense. Somebody of Something must have the authority in the final say of interpreting the Bible. That means they must have a higher or equal authority to scripture. Otherwise they have no more authority than you or me in interpreting the Bible and their voice carries no weight. Hence the 40,000 denominations of Christianity today, most claiming to be lead by SS.
I ask again, who told you that it was the word of God?

Again, this is a based on a false assertion that has not be proven. As mentioned previously, how man abuses scripture does not violate the authority and truth of scripture.

Once again, the assertion is not false and you have no proved otherwise.

Completely based in false hood. Christ never established a Pope. Peter never called himself the Bishop of Rome. Peter never established himself as head of the Church. Christ is the head of the Church, not fallible sinful man.

If Ignatius called it the Catholic church, he was referring to the universal body of believers, not the Roman Catholic church, and certainly not the Roman Catholic church of today that is so completely different from the Roman Catholic church that was founded around 350 AD. There is no Apostolic succession through the Popes, Anti-Popes, Popes put in place by politicial heads, the Pornacracy, multiple Popes, Popes anathemetizing other Popes, and forged documents (the Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals). Popes introducing false doctrines of the Assumption of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, that the early church fathers knew absolutely nothing of and were not developed until after about 1400 AD in response to the Reformation.

The Canon of Scripture was formed around 250 AD, long before the Roman Catholic church was even thought of. There is not one shred of evidence that the Council of Nicea had anything to do with the Canon of Scripture (you are perpetuating a myth).

God has preserved His word throughout time, not the Roman Catholic church.

Christ established a Church. That Church is the Church that gave the world the Bible, and without that Church, you would not know that the Bible is the word of God. Correct Peter never called himself the bishop of Rome, but why does not matter? It is an illogical argument to say that since Peter never called himself that, therefore the Pope is not his heir.
Correct, Jesus established Peter as the head of His Church here on earth. Jesus has always been the true head of the Church, because the Church is the bride of Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church was not founded in 350 AD, the Catholic Church at the time simply became known as the Roman Catholic Church because Rome adopted Catholicism as its state religion. I gave the letter from Ignatius, which states in part 8 the term Catholic Church.

Now your true colors come out, as it shows that you hate the Catholic Church. There are been bad popes, bad bishops and bad priests, because just like any other part of Christianity, if people are involved, you will get a few bad ones. The devil has been attacking and trying to destroy the Church that Jesus established since the beginning.

How are these false doctrines? I would love to know how, and these concepts did not just appear around the 1400AD. The concept of Purgatory is in documents going back to the early Church for instance. I would like to state, that even if some were introduced around 1400AD, that is not in response to the reformation, because the reformation did not happen until the 1530s AD. Please get your timeline correct.

The Canon was not formed in 250AD, it was finally agreed upon at the NT in 397AD in Carthage. It was at this point that the Church declared these books to be scripture and thus the Bible was formed. The Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council and the start of the development of canon for the Church, starting with the Nicene Creed.

God preserved His Church. Jesus didn't make a Bible, Jesus made a Church, and that Church made the Bible. Therefore, the upkeep of the Bible fell to the Church.

 

[Norbert L]

So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.

This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?

However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

What the scriptures do point out, about the highest authority here on earth, as the AMPC translation aptly puts it in Matthew 28:18, "Jesus approached and, breaking the silence, said to them, All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me."

This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.

A couple of things to point out here. Since Jesus is the authority here on earth right now, He stated in John 17:20 "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word". Their word is found in the scriptures and as the second point, so are the traditions they have already been handed down to us. It's within their word in which people might believe that defines those apostolic traditions and what they are. Not some later commandments of men.

Now on the issue 3

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

The NT scriptures were maintained through time by the Gentiles the same way the OT scriptures were maintained and handed down by the Jews. Being the instrument by which God preserves His word does not necessarily of and by itself exclude it from not only having wrong teachings but also share a similar fate.

 

[Wolf_Says]

The NT scriptures were maintained through time by the Gentiles the same way the OT scriptures were maintained and handed down by the Jews. Being the instrument by which God preserves His word does not necessarily of and by itself exclude it from not only having wrong teachings but also share a similar fate.

The books for the NT were maintained by the Church that Jesus started, and then put these books together and declared them at holy scripture in 397AD and that is where the Bible came from.

Just as God established the Jews, Jesus established His Church. The jews put the OT together, and the Church put the NT together.

 

[tickingclocker]

So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.

This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?

However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.

Now on the issue 3

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

You are assuming that the Catholic Pope should be the authority because the office was held by Peter? Why? Other apostolic-based churches claim the same thing, but they don't claim they alone have the right to speak "for God" as His sole authority. God holds the only true authority to speak for Himself, just as you alone hold the true authority to speak for yourself. So where can you point to biblically that states Peter was the "head Apostle"? It states that the Apostles and Disciples who knew Jesus, held everything "in common" including belief. That would mean under-authority as well, subject to the head who IS Jesus Christ. Not one Apostle.

Wasn't it Peter himself who announced that GOD says ALL believers in His Son now hold priesthood authority (1 Pet 2:5)? John as well reinforced the same statement (Rev. 1:6). So how could only one "church" organization hold it all? We all known the Bride of Christ is made up of many parts, all with an equally critical and specific role to fulfill in God's Plan. The Catholic church is simply one of those many parts, but never the head. Jesus Christ remains the head of the Church. Not Peter, not John or any other Apostle, not the Pope, nor any other human authority "figure" anyone can assume to replace Jesus Christ with.

I've always found that when people ask this question, they either want to justify something outside scripture, or, they are trying to prove their own agenda as valid. In other words, your assumptions have holes.

 

[Wolf_Says]

<Staff Edit>

You are assuming that the Catholic Pope should be the authority because the office was held by Peter? Why? Other apostolic-based churches claim the same thing, but they don't claim they alone have the right to speak "for God" as His sole authority. God holds the only true authority to speak for Himself, just as you alone hold the true authority to speak for yourself. So where can you point to biblically that states Peter was the "head Apostle"? It states that the Apostles, and every other Apostle and Disciple who knew Jesus, held everything "in common" including belief. That would mean under-authority as well, subject to the head who IS Jesus Christ. Not one Apostle.

It was Peter who Jesus built His Church on, hence the name change from Simon to Peter. Peter was also the only Apostle to receive the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is where Peter is made head of the Apostles. The first meeting of the Apostles after the death of Jesus was held by Peter. Peter was the head of the Church on earth, and God is the head of the Church in its entirety.

I've always found that when people ask this question, they either want to justify something outside scripture, or, they are trying to prove their own agenda as valid. In other words, your assumptions have holes.

Please explain where they have holes? Everything in my OP comes from debates I have had either here on the forums or in RL about SS. I have also provided links in my OP in regards to certain statements.

 

[Albion]

It was Peter who Jesus built His Church on, hence the name change from Simon to Peter.

He was apparently referring to the miraculous conversion of thousands of Jews from all over the region on Pentecost. That really started the building of the church in numerical terms and Peter was indeed chosen by Christ. The idea that a line of Popes, etc. is somehow predicted by Christ's words here is very fanciful and artificial. Even if it were so, we'd have to account for the fact that it wasn't known in the church for several hundred more years (although the verse in question was).

Peter was also the only Apostle to receive the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is where Peter is made head of the Apostles. The first meeting of the Apostles after the death of Jesus was held by Peter.

James presided at the Council of Jerusalem which made the important choice of a 12th Apostle, so your argument doesn't seem to hold up.

 

[tickingclocker]

The teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ, preserved by His Church for 2000 years. This INCLUDES SCRIPTURE.

God made a Church, that Church is the incontrovertible truth. Through that Church came the Bible. Jesus performed works and gave commands, which are preserved through this Church started by Jesus.

The church--any church--cannot hold incontrovertible truth. God alone holds that distinction. You are attempting to make the church, and in this instance, the Catholic church, equal with God, being divine? The Bride of Christ is not divine. Through God the bible was developed. It's God's Word, not the church's word. You would think those of the Catholic church would be humbled by being chosen as His tool, instead of prideful. Who is head of the toolbox, but the Master Carpenter?

 

[Wolf_Says]

He was apparently referring to the miraculous conversion of thousands of Jews from all over the region on Pentecost.

Where is this?

James presided at the Council of Jerusalem which made the important choice of a 12th Apostle, so your argument doesn't seem to hold up.

How exactly does that prove my argument wrong? Please expand on this a bit in order so that I can answer.

The church--any church--cannot hold incontrovertible truth. God alone holds that distinction. You are attempting to make the church, and in this instance, the Catholic church, equal with God, being divine? The Bride of Christ is not divine. Through God the bible was developed. It's God's Word, not the church's word. You would think those of the Catholic church would be humbled by being chosen as His tool, instead of prideful. Who is head of the toolbox, but the Master Carpenter?

I am doing no such thing in making the Church equal to God. There is nothing that is equal to God. I am not being prideful, I am stating a fact about the Bible. I also never said that God was not the head of the Catholic.

I was responding to the assumption that Scripture is incontrovertible truth.