A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

[Cronos]

Hi bb -- I think bob has already stated that he's oneness Pentecostal. However, this is the first time on the Religion forum I've seen non-Trinitarians explain their position without us Trinitarians (including me!!) telling them to get lost!

Both he and Zuriel have given quotes from scripture on what they believe and it is our duty to convince them on our point civilly (if they so wish to actively engage)

[Cronos]

apologies -- I explain in post 491 what I have been led to understand is sola scriptura -- definitions given to me by various PCA and OPC members:

the way I see it is that sola i.e. ONLY scripture is used by many to explain their position on Christian beliefs because they read a passage or excerpt and base their theology on their own individual interpretation of scripture.

Sola s means "I can read it on my own and come to my own conclusion" -- do you disagree with that simplistic statement

By taking scripture alone, in isolation, reading as an individual, the conclusions reached by Bob and Zuriel ARE possible. That I feel is due to Sola scriptura. I'm not saying sola told them that the trinity does not exist, but sola is the rule that allowed them to get to that conclusion.

You will disagree of course, but tell me if one is SOLA scriptura, one can easily reach their conclusions -- you didn't reach this way because your pastors,teachers, bible reference books, bible annotations, culture etc. (i.e. "tradition" :-P) told you that the Trinity exists

[Bobsvainbabblings]

 

 

Thank you all for your conversation and concern as to my salvation or whether I am a Christian.

 

I may have missed it somewhere but I believe the only thing that puts my salvation at risk according to the Head of my Heavenly Church, Jesus, is blasphemy of the Spirit.

 

His Father is the only one who decides whether I am saved or not.

 

Thanks again for your concern.

 

I had to be away today. I will address the concerns you have with my previous posts soon.

 

BVB 

[bkaycee]

I hope that's clear enough to dispel any doubts that the Church teachs that Christ's sacrifice is what won us Salvation.

It's somewhat clear what your view is. You say Faith and Grace, no co-operation? Are you really saying By Grace alone, Thru Faith Alone, in Christ Alone? Not quite sure what your position is. Your position seems to be the minority one in that most Catholics use James 2 as hammer against protestants and argue Faith AND works all day long.....Unity?

James 2:24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[Cronos]

I thought I made The Church's view (note, not my view) clear in post 500 --> The Church does NOT teach that Salvation is by Faith and Works, that is an incorrect statement.

Salvation as taught by the Church comes from Christ's sacrifice

God's Grace saves us, we cannot save ourselves. THAT is Church teaching

A Catholic is not saved by any means other than the Grace of God, in the name of Jesus, His Son who lived, died and rose for our sins to be forgiven thus opening the gates of heaven.

Grace is not just God's loving kindness, favor or mercy, but God’s divine life itself, which enables the work of Christ to flow through us. Through Adam, we have been dis-graced and separated from God, and in Christ, we are restored to grace and reconciled to God. Through grace people can become new creations, "partakers of the divine nature."[2 Pet. 1:4]

[Cronos]

And, as I told you, this is not "my" view -- and no Catholic would ever tell you that Salvation does NOT come from Christ's sacrifice. Our works cannot save us.

The Council of Trent states: "We are said to be justified by grace because nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For 'if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,' as the apostle says, 'grace is no more grace' [Rom. 11:6]" (Decree on Justification 8).

we can do nothing to merit the grace that comes to us. In fact, the Council of Trent condemned anyone who taught that we can save ourselves or who taught even that God helps (not leads) us do what we could do for ourselves. The Church teaches that we can be saved only by God’s grace.

As Paul says, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).

then Gal. 5:14, Gal 5:16–26.

We may co-operate with God in the sense of saying 'yes', but we do not save ourselves, we do not 'initiate contact', GOD does it all -- He saves us.

Cite even one example of a Catholic denying that we are saved only by God’s grace, please. If you find one, you/I can ask him/her to quote Church doctrine -- as I have quoted to you, it is quite clear that Salvation comes from Christ's sacrifice.

[Cronos]

So, bkaycee, repeating The Church does NOT teach that Salvation is by Faith and Works, that is an incorrect statement.

The Church teaches that we can be saved only by God’s grace.

Remember that I've given you direct quotes from councils and these are Church doctrines, not my opinion

Remember that we are not a sola interpretura group -- as you can see on this thread, if one says sola scriptura then the positions held by non-Trinitarians and those denying the divinity of Christ is arrived at. By taking scripture alone, in isolation, reading as an individual, the conclusions reached by Bob and Zuriel ARE possible. That I feel is due to Sola scriptura. I'm not saying sola told them that the trinity does not exist, but sola is the rule that allowed them to get to that conclusion.

if you wish to take sola scriptura as your rule, then their positions are equally valid as your interpretation since it is an individual's interpretation.

[bkaycee]

I do not feel you understand what is meant by Sola Scriptura

Here is a good explanation of what is and is not sola scriptura.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby

http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

[Cronos]

Unlike the Church that has a standard, fixed definition on different dogmas, there is not one fixed definition of Sola scriptura -- I have posted what members from the PCA and OPC and other calvinist groups have told me and what they refer to on their websites

[Cronos]

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth

Does boatbums agree with this point???

Besides, there are many OPC, PCA, Unitarians and other posters who swear by sola scriptura who would not agree with you on any of these points.

Sola scriptura leads to conclusions like we see here of people denying Christ's divinity and the Trinity.

[Cronos]

The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement

Then why are there so many who deny the divinity of Christ by quoting scripture? Read Zuriel's post above -- he quotes adequately from scripture for his point of view and if one holds by sola scriptura then his point of view should be equally valid, right?

[Cronos]

What would you think if someone said

Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing.

?

[Jvette]

“The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby”

The Bible makes no such claim for itself. It states that everything in it is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, but it does not claim to be the only rule of faith.

You admit that the Bible does not contain all knowledge, admit that Jesus himself said there was more he needed to say, admit that the Bible need not be exhaustive and then give as examples of information not contained therein as what color St. Thomas’ eyes were and what they ate?

Do you, in good faith, compare the words and teachings of Jesus with the mundane details of the life of the Apostles?

You further admit that the Church has teaching authority under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yet fail to name or define the Church. The nebulous “Christian Church” as Protestants call it, is not authoritative as we can clearly see by the variety of differing sects within that church. Jesus prayed for unity, one faith, one baptism.
Now, there is a claim that all Protestants share core beliefs, but as we sometimes see here that is not the case.

You further admit that oral teaching was a means of communicating the faith. The Apostles did indeed use Scripture, but they used it to prove who Jesus was. Why did they need to do that? To buttress their own authority. It was that closeness to Jesus of the Apostles that allowed them to have credibility and it is that same claim of closeness that the church demonstrates through its “Apostolic Succession” which gives it credibility.

The Church does not fear consistency between the Old and New Testaments. In fact, I submit that the Church is much more in tune with the belief that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old and that doctrines with which Protestants are in disagreement with the Church can be found within that fulfillment.

[bkaycee]

You are surprised that people can misunderstand or distort the scripture?

You think that is the scriptures(God Breathed) that are at fault?

The remedy is Roman Tradition (certainly not God Breathed)?

1 Cor 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

[bkaycee]

Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing.

I am not following you. What is your point?

[Jvette]

Whenever a Protestant uses 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence of Sola Scriptura, they always, always neglect to finish the sentence. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every GOOD WORK. We are saved by God's grace, called to good works that glorify the Lord and build our treasure in heaven. Faith is a verb.

[Cronos]

Do read what I said

Then why are there so many who deny the divinity of Christ by quoting scripture? Read Zuriel's post above -- he quotes adequately from scripture for his point of view and if one holds by sola scriptura then his point of view should be equally valid, right?

By taking scripture alone, in isolation, reading as an individual, the conclusions reached by Bob and Zuriel ARE possible.That I feel is due to Sola scriptura. I'm not saying sola told them that the trinity does not exist, but sola is the rule that allowed them to get to that conclusion.

if you wish to take sola scriptura as your rule, then their positions are equally valid as your interpretation since it is an individual's interpretation.

Scripture is infallible -- but sola scriptura is not -- as we see in the widely disparate beliefs between you and other sola scriptura folks who deny Christ's divinity.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

“I build doctrine on specific stated truths.”

Yet you say:

“Peter was given authority in the Kingdom, not in the Church on earth.”

Wow. Ok. This is despite the fact that Christ explicitly tells Peter, ‘Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound on Heaven?’

Sounds to me that Peter’s being given both, authority in the Kingdom, and authority in the Church on Earth, such that his authority in the Church on earth (bind on Earth), shall extend to heaven (bound in heaven).

  Forgiving sins and binding and loosing is not limited to Peter or the apostles as your Church claims.  He told you, I, and every believer the same thing when He taught us the Lords Prayer.

Father forgive/loose our sins as we forgive/loose the sins committed against us.

If we do not forgive/loose the sins committed by a brother on earth when they ask, that sin is bound on earth as well as in heaven and God cannot forgive/loose our sins against Him.

He explains this in Mathew 18 15-35. The first example involves one brother asking another to forgive him and how to handle it if that brother doesn't. The only role the local church has in this is as a referee. They are not required to forgive anyone because they were not sinned against.

They second example is when Peter asks Jesus how many times he/Peter has to forgive a brother who sins against him/Peter. Jesus tells Peter seven times seventy and goes on to explain the concept of binding and loosing. You and I have to forgive our earthly brothers before we can be forgiven by our heavenly Father.

What you won't find here or anywhere else is where a man can forgive sins committed against God for God as the Catholic Church practices.

Only you and I can, and must, forgive sins committed against us by a brother.  Only God can forgive our sins against Him.

Please read the verses and show me where I am wrong. Thanks BVB
 

Matthew 18:15-34 (New King James Version)

 

Dealing with a Sinning Brother

   
¹⁵ “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’^{[a] 17} And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
¹⁸ “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
¹⁹ “Again I say^[b] to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. ²⁰ For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

   
²¹ Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
²² Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. ²³ Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. ²⁴ And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. ²⁵ But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. ²⁶ The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ ²⁷ Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
²⁸ “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ ²⁹ So his fellow servant fell down at his feet^[c] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’^{[d] 30} And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. ³¹ So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. ³² Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. ³³ Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ ³⁴ And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
 

 

“I build doctrine on specific stated truths.”

Yet you say:

“Peter was given authority in the Kingdom, not in the Church on earth.”

Wow. Ok. This is despite the fact that Christ explicitly tells Peter, ‘Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound on Heaven?’

Sounds to me that Peter’s being given both, authority in the Kingdom, and authority in the Church on Earth, such that his authority in the Church on earth (bind on Earth), shall extend to heaven (bound in heaven).

  Forgiving sins and binding and loosing is not limited to Peter or the apostles as your Church claims.  He told you, I, and every believer the same thing when He taught us the Lords Prayer.

Father forgive/loose our sins as we forgive/loose the sins committed against us.

If we do not forgive/loose the sins committed by a brother on earth when they ask, that sin is bound on earth as well as in heaven and God cannot forgive/loose our sins against Him.

He explains this in Mathew 18 15-35. The first example involves one brother asking another to forgive him and how to handle it if that brother doesn't. The only role the local church has in this is as a referee. They are not required to forgive anyone because they were not sinned against.

They second example is when Peter asks Jesus how many times he/Peter has to forgive a brother who sins against him/Peter. Jesus tells Peter seven times seventy and goes on to explain the concept of binding and loosing. You and I have to forgive our earthly brothers before we can be forgiven by our heavenly Father.

What you won't find here or anywhere else is where a man can forgive sins committed against God for God as the Catholic Church practices.

Only you and I can, and must, forgive sins committed against us by a brother.  Only God can forgive our sins against Him.

Please read the verses and show me where I am wrong. Thanks BVB
 

Matthew 18:15-34 (New King James Version)

 

Dealing with a Sinning Brother

   
¹⁵ “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’^{[a] 17} And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
¹⁸ “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
¹⁹ “Again I say^[b] to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. ²⁰ For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

   
²¹ Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
²² Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. ²³ Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. ²⁴ And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. ²⁵ But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. ²⁶ The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ ²⁷ Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
²⁸ “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ ²⁹ So his fellow servant fell down at his feet^[c] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’^{[d] 30} And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. ³¹ So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. ³² Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. ³³ Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ ³⁴ And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
 

 

[Cronos]

Someone who holds completely to sola scriptura came up with his interpretaion that

Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing

Another person who holds to sola scriptura like Michael Servetus believes that Christ was not divine (as shown in this thread) and denies the Trinity!

That is sola scriptura!

[BenKenobi]

“If we do not forgive/loose the sins committed by a brother on earth when they ask, that sin is bound on earth as well as in heaven and God cannot forgive/loose our sins against Him.”

You are correct that I can forgive sins committed against me. Peter, however, can forgive sins committed against other people.