One of the distinctive Protestant principles is expressed in the slogan sola scriptura, which is Latin for “by Scripture only.” The idea is that every teaching on faith or morals must be directly or indirectly based on the Scriptures.
That leads to the common question, “Where’s that in the Bible?”
It’s an important question. In fact, it’s a question that needs to be asked about the doctrine of sola scriptura itself. Because if every teaching on faith or morals has to be based on the Bible thensola scriptura must be based on the Bible.
If it’s not, then it is a self-refuting claim and is false.
So what passages do Protestant Christians appeal to in support of sola scriptura?
Berean Christianity!
One that is sometimes cited is Acts 17, which deals with an incident that happened when St. Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue in the Greek city of Berea.
St. Luke writes:
Acts 17
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Many in the Protestant community have found this an inspiring story, and some have even named their ministries after the Berean Jews. If you go online you can find all kinds of Berean churches, schools, ministries, and bookstores.
The idea is that we should imitate the Berean Jews and take a skeptical attitude of theological ideas we are presented with. Instead of just accepting them, we should search the Scriptures daily to see if what we are being told is true or not. If it’s not, then we should not accept it.
If that’s what the passage means—if it is commending the Bereans for their skeptical attitude and refusal to believe a teaching unless it can be found in Scripture—then this would be good evidence for sola scriptura.
But that’s not what it means, and it’s easy to show that.
What About Thessalonica?
You’ll notice that Acts 17:11 says that the Berean Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, which raises an immediate question: “What were the Thessalonian Jews like?”
If they are less noble in contrast to the skeptical Bereans, presumably they were credulous individuals who accepted what they were told without Scriptural proof.
That’s not what they were like at all. To see this, let’s back up to the beginning of the chapter, where we read:
Acts 17
[1] Now when [Paul and his companions] had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
[2] And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,
[3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
[4] And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
[5] But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,
[7] and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
[8] And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this.
[9] And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
[10] The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
It’s in that context that we now return to the verse where we started:
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
The Real Reason the Bereans Were Praised?
So the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question.
Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
This understanding is confirmed by the following verses, where we read:
[12] Many of [the Bereans] therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
[13] But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds.
[14] Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.
So the Thessalonians forced Paul to flee Berea, just as they had forced him to flee from their own town.
Thus it wasn’t the Bereans who were skeptical. It was the Thessalonians.
“By the Old Testament Alone?”
There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament.
What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.”
While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith.
What the Berean Jews were willing to do, therefore, was to open-mindedly look at the Old Testament Scriptures, see if they confirmed Paul’s preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and then go on to accept the new, Christian revelation that Paul also imparted.
And he imparted it by preaching, because the books of the New Testament were not all written yet.
The True Attitude of Berean and Thessalonian Christians
If we were to follow the example of the Bereans, we would look at whether the Scriptures we do have support a particular message and, if they do, then be willing to accept further revelation not found in those Scriptures.
We would, ironically, embrace the attitude of those at Thessalonica who did accept the Christian faith, for in 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul told them:
2 Thessialonians 2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
In other words, we would recognize the authority of all of the traditions passed on from Christ and the apostles, whether they were written or not.
And this is what the Catholic Church says we should do.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about these and other matters, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out fascinating information on a variety of topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
Comments
Post a Comment
Jimmy,
If Sola Scriptura means “The idea is that every teaching on faith or morals must be directly or indirectly based on the Scriptures.” then the RCC believes in it also since it claims (as far as I can tell) to have all its doctrines based on Scripture in some way.
What Sola Scriptura provides is the foundation for claiming that all doctrines are apostolic since all that we have from the apostles is found in the Scripture alone. Any doctrines such as the papacy, indulgences or the Marian doctrines would not be apostolic since these doctrines are not taught in Scripture.
Let’s not cherry-pick one sentence from an article and run wild. J’s main point is showing that the example of Bereans as support for Sola Scriptura fizzles and fizzles badly (much like 2 Timothy does) If one wants a full critique of Sola Scriptura, see: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/bible-church-tradition-canon-index.html
Scott W,
Did the Bereans use tradition as way to determine what Paul taught was the truth? Did they appeal to a pope to determine what Paul taught was true? Of course not. They appealed to Scripture alone.
The papacy, indulgences, and Marian doctrines are found in Scripture.
@Jerome It seems you haven’t bothered to read Akin’s entry in full, or at least read it and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge any of the points in it.
Scott W,
I’m not convinced Jimmy understands Sola Scriptura. What points do you think I’m missing?
Ahhh…Jerome. We meet again. Only this time the actual topic IS Sola Scriptura.
Given that Jimmy is a convert from one those many denominations we discussed on another blog, it’s probably safe to say that he has a good understanding of Sola Scriptura.
As I painstakingly laid out (and was summarily ignored), YOU believe that Scripture is the ONLY INFALLIBLE source of Truth. We believe there are THREE INFALLIBLE sources of Truth. It really is that simple.
So while much of our doctrine can be found in Scripture (that would make sense since it is AN infallible source of Truth), some of our doctrine is not in Scripture, but rather comes from one of the two OTHER infallible sources of Truth. Those being the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ Himself to deal with just this sort of heresy, and Sacred Tradition.
While all of our doctrine is not FOUND in Scripture, NONE of it contradicts Scripture. That would be impossible. Scripture cannot contradict Sacred Tradition, Sacred Tradition cannot contradict the Magesterium and the Magesterium cannot contradict Scripture. Neither can the Magesterium contradict Sacred Tradition, and Scripture cannot contradict the Magesterium. It’s a boxed trifecta if you will.
So every time you say “but, but, but…it’s not in Scripppppppture”, we say “Yes. So what?”
And furthermore, we can show that our view is correct USING SCRIPTURE, while you cannot even come close. The most you can do is confirm what the Church already teaches…that Scripture is a source of infallible Truth. This does not mean however, that it is the ONLY source. Saavy?
What Sola Scriptura provides is the foundation for claiming that all doctrines are apostolic since all that we have from the apostles is found in the Scripture alone
But you see there…you are flat out wrong. We also have the Didache which is the handbook of the Apostles. And books written by those who followed the Apostles. (You know, the early Church fathers). And please don’t even try telling us that second hand writings aren’t good enough. They were good enough for Our Lord who only wrote one thing as far as we know and we don’t even know what THAT was. If others could write what Jesus said and did, and we take that as Gospel, then surely others could write what the apostles wrote and did.
Mk,
Are you sure you want to get into this after our last encounter?
I’m surprised there is not much activity on this topic given that Roman Catholics think this is slam dunk false doctrine. Since we agree at least that 66 books of the Bible are inspired-inerrant we don’t need to get into these books as much in this discussion.
What I am defending is that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant. This is the foundational principle for Sola Scriptura. There might be truth in other places but these are not God breathed i.e. inspired-inerrant as the Scripture alone is. What you are going to have to demonstrate is that your traditions (whatever they are) are also God breathed i.e. inspired-inerrant.
I have already demonstrated that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not found in Scripture and in fact contradicts the Scripture. If you disagree then you are going to need to presents facts from the Scripture themselves that shows otherwise. Mere assertion or because your church leaders say otherwise is not an argument. Claiming that the Magisterium cannot contradict Scripture is not the same as demonstrating it. The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of a number of doctrines of the Roman Catholic church that do indeed contradict the Scripture. You already have the 10-12 facts that I posted on Mark’s blog. I can repost them if you want me to.
Is the Didache considered Scripture? Who were the apostles that wrote it? The fact is that it is not Scripture nor is it considered being written by the apostles since there is no evidence that they did.
What others wrote about the apostles in what they might have done is not considered inerrant nor inspired.
What I am defending is that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant. This is the foundational principle for Sola Scriptura.
Yes. I know. You say the moon is made of cheese. That’s not a snarky comparison, I’m just saying that that is your premise. It is not mine, nor the Catholic Churches.
There might be truth in other places but these are not God breathed i.e. inspired-inerrant as the Scripture alone is.
That’s where you go off the rails. First, that is not Scriptural. So you defeat your defense before you even make it. To get me to accept your premise, you need to prove it.
Second, the onus is NOT on US, but on YOU. The beliefs that we hold are the same beliefs that have been held for 2,000 years. YOU are the one asserting that they are wrong. YOU are the one that needs to show why.
If I am a cook, and I say that you need to turn on the heat to cook an egg and everyone, everywhere accepts this, and then you show up and say no you don’t, YOU are the one that needs to show that I am wrong. You need to prove that you do not need heat to cook an egg.
I can show you that Peter was given the Authority to rule over the Church. I can show you what it meant to be given the “keys”. I can show you the earliest Church fathers referring to the Holy See (The Pope/Magesterium).
You cannot show me ANYWHERE the doctrine of Sola Scriptura until the 1500’s where a man, not God, claimed that it was so. There is NO history of it, and most of all, you cannot show it with the very thing you claim contains it…Scripture.
I have already demonstrated that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not found in Scripture and in fact contradicts the Scripture.
No you have not. Do you know how I know that you have not? Because I would not even entertain the idea with you until you showed me that your “proof” was Scriptural. You never proved your premise so we never discussed Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
Claiming that the Magisterium cannot contradict Scripture is not the same as demonstrating it.
First, claiming that Scripture alone contains infallible Truth is not the same as demonstrating it.
Second, not being implicit in Scripture is NOT the same as contradicting it. You are assuming that YOUR interpretation of Scripture is the correct one and I have no reason to accept that assumption. In fact, I reject it. Without the Church we are not capable of understanding Scripture.
Is the Didache considered Scripture? Who were the apostles that wrote it? The fact is that it is not Scripture nor is it considered being written by the apostles since there is no evidence that they did.
What others wrote about the apostles in what they might have done is not considered inerrant nor inspired.
And this is why I say you are dishonest. You made this statement:
What Sola Scriptura provides is the foundation for claiming that all doctrines are apostolic since all that we have from the apostles is found in the Scripture alone
I refuted THAT statement. Nowhere in that statement do you ask for another infallible source, and nowhere did I claim that the Didache or other writings were infallible. You made the false statement that ONLY Scripture contains information from the apostles. This is a false statement. ALL THAT WE HAVE FROM THE APOSTLES IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT ONLY FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. To turn my answer around and make it seem as if I was claiming the Didache is infallible is dishonest. What it is, is empirical data showing how the apostles lived and what they believed and did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
Sources are cited at the bottom.
Mk,
If there is another inspired-inerrant source besides the Scripture then you need to prove it. No need to prove that the Scripture is inspired-inerrant since the Roman Catholic church already teaches that they are.
What you need to do is to prove or demonstrate that the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are also inspired-inerrant. That has not been done. If you can do this, then you can justify your claim that the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture.
It is true that Peter was given keys just as the other apostles were. See Matthew 18:18. Peter demonstrated on the day Pentecost that he had the key to open the kingdom of God to everyone when he preached the first sermon about the gospel that saves. Other apostles such as Paul did the same.
What church fathers refer to the pope in Rome as the supreme leader of the entire church? Can you give me a couple of quotes that shows this?
Mk,
You will need to show from Scripture that the children of Mary mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 cannot be her own children. Remember: When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters.
Since you are not going to agree that my interpretation is incorrect then you need to show what is the official interpretation of the Roman Catholic church on these verses is. What church document shows how the their interpretations means these are anything but blood brothers and sisters of Jesus?
How do you know the understanding of church’ is the correct one? Jesus never promised that the church could not err.
There is no evidence that the apostles wrote the Didache. It is not an apostolic work. It has been rejected as spurious or non-canonical. If it was truly written by the apostles it would be part of the New Testament.
It is true that the only teachings-sayings of the Lord Jesus and His apostles is found only in the New Testament.
No need to prove that the Scripture is inspired-inerrant since the Roman Catholic church already teaches that they are.
*sigh* More dishonesty.
You have just said yourself that there is no contention that Scripture is inspired-inerrant, so why do you then feign as if I contend otherwise.
Your assertion IS and has always been and THIS and THIS ALONE is the contention…follow me now…that it is the ONLY. ONLY. ONLY source of inspired-inerrant Truth.
I have to prove nothing. You are the one contesting a time honored belief. AFTER you prove your premise, we can move on. Then I will be HAPPY (and I mean that) to show you why the Church believes as she does.
This is why you frustrated me last time. Either you are seriously incapable of following this or you know exactly what you are doing. If you are truly out of your league and the points I am making are going over your head, I will gladly take it down a notch and explain things more slowly. But if you are just being obtuse, purposely pretending not to understand, then you are a troll. Which is it? Because this really couldn’t be simpler. Do you have an honest desire to understand, or are you just getting your jollies off annoying Catholics?
You will need to show from Scripture that the children of Mary mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 cannot be her own children. Remember: When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters.
No Jerome, that is exactly what I do NOT have to do. This post is about Sola Scriptura. Nothing else. Stick to that, or I am done. Obviously you can’t. You have no idea why Sola Scriptura is right. You were taught it, you believe it, but you cannot defend it. IT IS NOT SCRIPTURAL. Is this truly that difficult for you to comprehend?
WHY Jerome? WHY do I have to prove it using Scripture. Prove to me that I do. Then I will.
It has been rejected as spurious or non-canonical.
First, do you even know what you are talking about? Non-canonical does not mean spurious. It means it was not considered inspired. If I write a grocery list and sign it, it isn’t canonical, but it isn’t spurious either.
The Didache is an accepted, got that, accepted documentation of the activities and beliefs of the Apostles. Do you use the dictionary? Is it canonical? How can you trust it to be true? How about the Diary of Anne Frank? Is it canonical? NO? Then it must be a lie!
Good grief man, do you know how silly you sound? And again, I NEVER CLAIMED THE DIDACHE WAS INSPIRED. I said it existed.
Mk,
I haven’t finished making the case for Sola Scriptura. What I did though is to refute the idea that the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition (whatever that is) is equal to the inspired-inerrant Scripture. Since you can’t demonstrate it or prove these two things to be inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is, then your claim on this issue fails.
I took the DIDACHE off the table as being a source from the apostles. It is irrelevant to our discussion on Sola Scriptura.
Since it is a spurious work we should not take it as authentic apostle teachings i.e. as coming directly from their own hand writings.
It is true that the Scripture alone is ONLY source of inspired-inerrant Truth. It alone is God-breathed. Since you have not shown any other sources to be inspired-inerrant then Scripture alone is the only reliable source in which to build doctrine on. Only doctrines grounded on Scripture can be said to be apostolic. Any doctrine not grounded on Scripture can be said to be apostolic.
I think your frustration comes from your ignorance of Scripture and what the implications are for the teachings of your church. I have seen this quite often when I get into deeper discussion with Roman Catholics. They start off with such confidence in their church being right until the discussion gets a little deeper it quickly gets highly emotional when they dialogue with someone who knows Scripture well and theology. I was hoping you would give me a good defense of your claims such as the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition being on equal footing with Scripture but it looks like another meltdown is in process. Please prove me wrong.
Since you can’t demonstrate it or prove these two things to be inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is, then your claim on this issue fails.
I’m sorry…where did you get the idea that I “Can’t”? I believe I’ve said repeatedly that I “Won’t” not “Can’t”, until we settle on our premises.
I took the DIDACHE off the table as being a source from the apostles. It is irrelevant to our discussion on Sola Scriptura.
Oh you did, did you? Lol. And who are you???
I think your frustration comes from your ignorance of Scripture and what the implications are for the teachings of your church.<i>
You got that half right. My frustration comes from ignorance all right, but it ain’t MY ignorance of Scripture.
<i>Only doctrines grounded on Scripture can be said to be apostolic.
Pride much? WHO says this?
I have seen this quite often when I get into deeper discussion with Roman Catholics.
I don’t think you’d know a “deeper conversation” if it bit you in the a..
And I certainly don’t think you’ve ever had one with a Catholic. You are a hoot, my man, a hoot.
Sweetheart, I have not changed my position in the last week. I said then, and I say now…until you can prove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura I will not engage with you on any other subject. You can accuse of not being able to, you can change the subject, you can insult my intelligence. About the only thing you seem to NOT be able to do is defend Sola Scriptura.
I see a lot of posturing, but no substance. It’s really, really, really simple. I ran it by my 10 year old an he got it. I have high hopes that after another week or two of this, you will be able to grasp it also.
Here it is. Again.
You have a premise. I disagree with it. Until you can prove your premise, not only WON’T I continue this conversation, but it would be impossible to do so. Ironically, here we are on a post that is all about that exact premise. Co incidence? I don’t believe in them (thank you Jimmy). When or If you DO provide an argument for your premise, THEN I will HAPPILY discuss any other topic you wish, INCLUDING Mary’s Virginity, Papal infallibility, Sacred Tradition (which you dismiss, yet actually follow and don’t even know it)or anything else that you like. Heck, I’ll even show USING SCRIPTURE why Scripture is NOT the only infallible source of Truth. Until then? No go.
So put up or shut up. Defend your premise so I can defend mine or go away.
Mk,
Lets start in small steps. Is there any other source that is inspired-inerrant besides the Scripture? If yes, then what would that be?
Lets start in even smaller steps. Can you use Scripture to prove that it is the only inerrant, inspired, infallible source of Truth.
This is a Catholic Blog. We don’t need to prove what WE believe. We already believe it.
And I’ve already answered your question numerous times. Heck, you even quoted it back to me.
Jerome,
You need to look at the title of this post again. It might help clarify what we are discussing. Sola Scriptura. Not my beliefs. Not the Churches beliefs. Not other inerrant, inspired, infallible sources of Truth. Not Scripture as ONE source of inerrant, inspired, infallible Truth.
But Sola Scriptura. You might say this is a Sola Subject Post.
You know, you could make this easier on both of us and just admit that it is not possible to prove Sola Scriptura using Scripture because it isn’t in Scripture. Everyone already knows it. It’s not like it would be some great revelation. There is nothing emasculating about saying “I can’t”. We get it. We already know it can’t be done. At least then you would have eliminated the premise that all of our arguments must be Scripture based.
Because obviously you do not really believe that they must, as Sola Scriptura is not.
mk,
Part of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant. There is no other. That’s why its important to make this point before we proceed. If you think there is another inspired-inerrant source such as the Magesterium or Sacred tradition then you need to demonstrate that. So far you have not. This means 2 points are true of Sola Scriptura:
1) The Scriptures are inspired-inerrant
2) there is no other source that is inspired-inerrant.
If you disagree with either point then give your reasons and see if they are justified. For example the DIDACHE fails as a inspired-inerrant source. The Magisterium does not qualify either. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an example of the Magisterium incorrectly interpreting Scripture. Anything else?
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
Babe, repeating yourself over and over is not helping. I’m well aware of what Sola Scriptura is. I do not accept it.
I’ll say this one more time. This is a Catholic Blog. I know what I believe. You are the one telling me that what I believe is incorrect. It is up to you, if for no other reason than common courtesy, to show me why my beliefs are wrong.
I promise, if I ever go to a Protestant Blog (cold day in hell) and start telling them that what they believe is wrong, I will start by telling them what I believe and why. I won’t go to THEIR home and say HEY, defend your position cuz you’re wrong!!!!
At the very least, your behavior is rude. At worst it is deceitful.
Now, admit it. Sola Scriptura cannot be proven using Scripture. I’ll even play along with you…
Really? The only source of inspired inerrant infallible Truth is Scripture???? That is AWESOME, AMAZING…I can’t wait to tell my friends. They’re going to want proof, so can you show me where in Scripture it says this?????? Huh, can you???
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures
But you see, that’s a** backwards. The real question is “Does SCRIPTURE teach SOLA SCRIPTURA”...
Are you really young? Like a 14 year playing grownup? It would explain a lot. And I would show you more Mercy if I thought you really weren’t understanding this.
I’m on another post conversing with N.O. and it has just occurred to me that the only other person I’ve ever done this with that seemed as slow on the uptake as you is a guy named Erik. So the gig is up, as there cannot be two of you in the world. As soon as I asked you if you were 14 it hit me…
Perhaps you fancy yourself cunning, or genius material, but honestly, you’re kind of sad.
I already gave you a couple of examples that shows where your church has erred and you did not even try to correct me. The reason is that you can’t.
I did prove Sola Scriptura by Scripture by demonstrating that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is the nature of the Scripture to be inspired-inerrant. This is a foundational principle of Sola Scriptura.
We see Sola Scriptura in action in Scripture where the Lord Jesus rebukes Satan by Scripture. We see Peter in 1 Peter 2:2 that we grow in salvation via the Scripture. We see in Psalm 119 the many characteristics of the Scripture.
Again, only the Scriptures are inerrant infallible Truth. Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant which means they alone are infallible.
Do you even read the drivel you write?
I did prove the moon is made of cheese by demonstrating that I believe it is made of Cheese. I just said so, didn’t I? What else do you want? Just take my word for it. The very nature of cheese is that it is cheeselike, therefore the moon is made of it.
You’re hopeless.
In the future, if you want me to read Scripture passages? Copy and paste the passage not just the chapter and verse. I have no intention of looking up 400 passages.
While those particular ones are lovely, they do nothing to prove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant which means they alone are infallible.
mmmm-hmmmm…and it says this in Scripture, where?
I already gave you a couple of examples that shows where your church has erred and you did not even try to correct me. The reason is that you can’t.
Now see, I just read the title of this post again and nowhere in it does it say “Catholics believe wrong things…show them” What it does say is SOLA SCRIPTURA.
I can defend them. I choose not to. Can you understand that? This is like the 15th time I’ve said it Erik.
Admit it. You have not been able to refute Sola Scriptura nor defend your church against the errors I pointed out. If you don’t know where to find a passage I quote just go to the table of contents at the beginning of a bible and you can find it there.
How could the Scripture not be infallible since they are inspired-inerrant? Jesus Himself said as much in Matt 5:18-19
You can’t defend the indefensible. Claiming you choose not to is a cop-out.
I have not even tried to refute Sola Scriptura. There is nothing to refute. It’s not in Scripture.
I don’t need your ‘help’ to look up passages. I’m simply not going to waste my time. If you want me to read a passage cut and paste it. If not, then don’t bother citing them.
Please show me where I said Scripture was not infallible?
Give me an “O”
Give me an “N”
Give me an “L”
Give me a “Y”
What’s that spell…O.N.L.Y. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not state that Scripture is infallible. It states that ONLY scripture is infallible. I thought you knew that. Don’t you even know what you believe?
Sheesh.
If you need to believe it is a cop out in order to get out of proving Sola Scriptura, that’s fine. Given your predilection towards dishonesty, I’m not surprised to find you cowardly also.
Perhaps you can’t tell, but I’m not budging on this. EVERYTHING hinges on Sola Scriptura. Every argument and explanation. So until you can prove that it is true, we can go no further. And I already told you not to paste chapter and verse, but the whole passage. Since yo can’t even do that, I’m out of here. You haven’t improved much since your last attempt as Erik. Before you debate people on what you believe, you should know what you believe and how to back it up.
You keep whining that I can’t prove Sola Scriptura is wrong and I keep telling you it isn’t in Scripture. By your own rules, that proves it. All you need to do if you really want to know why we use other sources is read the post that Jimmy put up instead of seeing the headline and jumping in without preparing.
Brave Sir Robin…
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.