SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Sola Scriptura is logically untenable

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri


Why do you people keep calling the catholic religion
the catholic church?

Your tone here is hardly moderate. But to answer your question it is in part because the condition of what was once known as the 'Universal Church' (Catholic church) in the beginning was not as it became during the Dark Ages post Constantine.

If we want to be pedantic then we would really be narrowing down who and what constitutes a 'church'. For example, it would not be proper to refer to 'the Baptist church', 'the Pentecostal church' or the Methodist church', etc. For a good look into what the scripture teaching is concerning the Church and churches I would recommend G.H. Lang's 'The Churches of God.'

Robert Wurtz II

 2009/8/23 16:38Profile


Moderate ?

You are correct, having grown up in the catholic religion and having seen its influence on damning the souls of many of my relatives makes it pretty
difficult to be moderate when discussing this religion spawned in hell.

 2009/8/23 17:01

Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re: Sola Scriptura is logically untenable

The Bible never claims to be the only rule for faith and practice. Scripture claims to be God-breathed or inspired. We taught the world to believe this. It claims to be inerrant. We also taught the world to believe this over a millennium before Martin Luther ever came along. It claims to be the Word of God. We also taught the world to believe this.

Why? Because the Scriptures need to be interpreted. And herein lies the problem. Each of us is FALLABLE. And therefore so is our interpretation.


From these two statements you make the issue is WHO IS THE INTERPRETER?

Well scripture (which you claim is inerrant) tells us very clearly.

Jesus said: 'But the helper, The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you ALL things and bring to your rememberance ALL things I have said to you'. (John 14 v26).

and again...''However when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into ALL truth. (John 16 v13).

Paul said: 'Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might KNOW the things that have been freely given to us by God'. (1 Corinthians 2 v12). 'But the natural man does not receive the things of God for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'(v14)

Now it is only to those who HAVE receiced the Spirit of God that can KNOW and understand the word of God. It is spiritualy discerned.

Jesus said: ' Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a man is born again he cannot SEE the kingdom of God. (John 3 v3).
' Unless one is born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God'.

Jesus said: 'He who believes (trusts and depends) in the Son has everlasting life and He who does not believe (trust and rely) on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him'. (John 3 v36).

So unless we come to Jesus Christ and trust Him alone for our salvation, we cannot be saved or have the promise of His Spirit.

So in a sense Scripture on it's own, although sufficient and complete is of no benefit to us without the Holy Spirit to interpret it to us.

However if you are trusting in a religious system or a pope, you are not trusting in The Lord Jesus Christ and therefore you are lost and need to be 'born again' by repentance from dead religion and sin and have faith in the FINISHED work of Christ on the cross.

I was there once and nothing but Christ Jesus and His Spirit can give you life and enlightenment. I pray you will look to Him and His word (they are one)alone and find true life. This LIFE is in the Son.


 2009/8/23 17:34Profile

 Rev Enue

this thread itself, and the responses given, and slack cut, are very illuminating, as to the supposed witness of the Church. Disturbingly illuminating. Amen to what you wrote, to me, its not even a "religion", its an "institution".

 2009/8/23 19:17

Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791



Catholic wrote:
The Bible is inerrant. But it needs to be interpreted...

...You speak of the Bible as though it needs no interpretation or clarification or careful exegesis to be understood.

Yes, the Scriptures do need to be interpreted.

In fact, every one has there own interpretation; Even though some may have the same interpretation as one group of people, while some have the same as another group of people.

This is where we get denominations.

However, [color=990000]when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all Truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.[/color] [b]John 16:13[/b]
The Interpreter is in us.

[b]Mat 23:8[/b] [color=990000]But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
[b]9[/b] And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
[b]:10[/b] And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.[/color]

IOW: to not say that a man is your interpreter.

None the less, anyone can know the Scriptures with out knowing the Father, or even the Son for that matter.

It is vain to read the Scriptures without getting to know the Author of the Scriptures.

This verse is so true:
[b]John 5:39a[/b] [color=990000]You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life[/color]
Eternal life is only from a relationship with the Father through Christ.

 2009/8/23 19:18Profile

Joined: 2006/5/31
Posts: 427


crsschk and RobertW. Your posts were spot on. I couldn't have said it any better!

 2009/8/23 21:41Profile

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri


Moderate ?

You are correct, having grown up in the catholic religion and having seen its influence on damning the souls of many of my relatives makes it pretty
difficult to be moderate when discussing this religion spawned in hell.

This may be but the same can be said for all sorts of things. The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God. And though I share in the resentment of any false doctrine or sin that may damn souls I must be careful not to allow that to come out in a way that would cause me to misrepresent God. I have been [u]very[/u] disturbed by the tone of how this thread has gone. I have not posted on SI in a while and was surprised at what I was seeing. Just being honest. What hope do we have of reaching someone in deception if we manifest this type of behavior? What if Steven in Acts 7 would have acted out? I tell you Paul the Apostle may have had a very different attitude towards Christ. But it was in the heat of the battle that He still yielded the fruit of the Spirit that was so unlike anything Saul (later Paul) had ever seen. And this is the challenge of our times; are we full of the Holy Ghost in such a way as to battle it out in the marketplace of ideas in the unction and power of the Holy Spirit- while being true to the virtues of the Holy Spirit.

[color=000066]The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,[/color]

Robert Wurtz II

 2009/8/23 22:14Profile

Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada


What hope do we have of reaching someone in deception if we manifest this type of behavior?

I agree. I understand that the heresy of Roman Catholicism cuts to the quick in many hearts. But error is defeated with Truth, not with inflammatory remarks.

Let us trust the One with the sharp sword with two edges. This is first and foremost His battle. Let us all submit ourselves to Him.

Allan Halton

 2009/8/23 22:48Profile



Thank you for your kind welcome. Thanks as well for your thoughtful engagement on this topic. I look forward to seeing where the Lord will take us with all of this.


Just telling someone that hell is a million degrees hot and "repent" without any substantial thought joined with charity behind it would well classify as a clanging gong and sounding symbol. Don't you think? Especially since I already believe in hell and the necessity of repentance.

I could easily digress into such a rampage about your blasphemy against the Church of Jesus Christ which is His body (notice its the body/physically represented not soul/invisible).

But I will refrain because I honestly don't think you've ever read an objective piece of paper on the subjects you claim to speak of. You are filled with anti-Catholic claims that you blindly accept as fact.

I still don't see how you think the gospel was lost for 1500 years and suddenly appeared on the scene with Luther and Calvin.

To the rest of you:

I am very glad that so many have taken time to honestly engage me on these issues. RobertW, please be patient with me as I truly want to respond to all of your questions and issues raised.

I think the best thing for me to do with the time I have is to eat this elephant a bite at a time and God-willing we can get to everything in time. Sound OK?

All I can do is ask you all to please read all of this. I am doing my best to read all of your posts. I think it is reasonable to ask you all to at least read my one post. Here we go:

Let me state this...that the man who declares that he accepts only the Bible as his authority in religious matters does not really mean it. For he really believes in what he himself thinks any given passage of the Bible to mean, which might not be what the Bible means at all. For such a person, the only ultimate authority in religious matters is not that of the Bible, BUT THAT OF HIS OWN JUDGEMENT CONCERNING IT, and he has no assurance that his own judgment is any more reliable than that of others whose interpretation differs from his and who honestly believe his interpretation to be quite mistaken.

I mention this here merely to bring out the fact that the Catholic position is not affected by such difficulties. For it holds that Christ never intended the Bible alone to be each man's "guide book" to religious truth.

His method was to establish a Church authorized by him to teach mankind in his name. He chose his apostles, trained them, and commissioned them to go and to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, "teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). He did not tell them to write any books. No books of the New Testament were written until years after his death.

But the first Christians were not without guidance. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that they "were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42).

Christ, therefore, meant the official teaching of the apostles and of their successors in the Church to be our guide, not the written Bible which is so liable to misinterpretation by its various individual readers, however sincere they may be.

The Bible, as the very Word of God, is true in itself, but not all the conclusions people choose to draw from it are necessarily right. And this brings us to a further and very vital point of divergence between the position of Protestants generally and that of the Catholic Church.

"Private interpretation"

Apart from the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the Bible, the problem of its interpretation is one of the first importance. It can have authority for us as the Word of God only provided we rightly grasp exactly what God intended to say. No meanings other than those he intended to be read into the text by men have any divine authority at all.

It has been said that once one admits that the Bible contains the revelation of God himself, then we have to admit that no man can go wrong if he is guided by it. If he were really guided by it, that would of course be true, at least as regards that part of divine revelation which has been recorded in its pages.

But the trouble is that a man can wrongly think he is being guided by the Bible when in reality he is not, owing to his having misunderstood it. And is it not true, passing over for the moment the fact that for over a thousand years before the invention of the printing press it was impossible for each man to have a Bible, that when universal distribution became possible sincere and earnest Bible readers arrived at a multitude of conflicting conclusions?

If private interpretation were God's way, the same Holy Spirit would have led all confiding in his assistance to one and the same truth. (this forum might not even exist?)

Against these considerations, the command of Christ has been urged that we "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39). But the thousands of well-intentioned Protestants who have quoted those words as if indeed they were a command have been led astray by the translation in the Protestant Authorized Version of the Bible, a translation which has been corrected in the Protestant Revised Version to "You search the Scriptures."

Christ was stating a fact, not giving a command. He was addressing a group of Jews and blaming them for not recognizing him as the fulfillment of all that the Scriptures had predicted about him. The . . . Protestant Revised Standard Version describes him as saying, "You do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me."

As a matter of fact, the whole passage is fatal to the contention that by searching the Scriptures one will necessarily arrive at the truth. The very ones to whom Christ was speaking had searched the Scriptures in the sincere belief that by such means they would learn all that was necessary for eternal life. Christ acknowledged that they really thought in such a way. And yet they had not arrived at the truth!

"Bible its own interpreter"

A way out of these difficulties was thought to be found in the contention that the Bible, as no other book can boast, is its own interpreter. After all, it was urged, since the Bible contains the inspired Word of the infinite God, no interpretation of it by any finite mind could possibly do it justice. We must therefore hold that the Word of God interprets itself to each sincere reader of the Bible.

It is really impossible, though, to maintain such a position. Although sacred Scripture is inspired by the "infinite God," we cannot escape accepting the interpretation placed upon it by finite minds.

After all, Scripture must mean something. To declare that meaning is to interpret it. And as human beings have only finite minds, they must either rely on meanings derived from it by their finite minds or refuse to attribute any meaning to Scripture at all.

No book, even one inspired by God, can be its own interpreter, and the very suggestion that the Bible is self-interpreting is opposed to its own teaching. For not only does the Bible nowhere claim to be "its own interpreter," it declares the very opposite. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles that, when Philip found the Ethiopian reading the Bible, he said to him, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" The man replied, "And how can I, unless some man show me?" Then Philip, in the name of the Church, interpreted the Scriptures for him (Acts 8:27-39).

Writing to Timothy, St. Paul tells him that it is the Church of the living God which is "the pillar and the ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Again, he tells him, as a bishop of that Church, to "keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost...Preach the word...reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine" (2 Tim. 1:14, 3:2). What does that mean but to interpret Scripture correctly and insist on the acceptance of the true interpretation declared in the name of the Church wherever it is a question of such doctrines as are contained in the Bible?

The choice, then, is between interpretations proposed by unauthorized and fallible human minds and those of an authorized and infallible teacher in this world if such exists. The Bible contains the truth, but not everyone, even with the best of good will, is able to discern the truth it contains.

The Bible needs an authoritative teacher to explain its meaning in innumerable passages if misunder-standings are to be avoided. If a teacher is needed in schools to explain the text-books dealing with the mysteries of nature itself, how much more necessary is a teacher to explain the mysteries of divine revelation contained in Holy Scripture!

The Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, claims to be the divinely-appointed and infallible teacher at hand for this purpose, and hers is the only truly biblical position.

"Holy Spirit speaks"

Lacking faith in the Catholic Church and not finding her claims acceptable, Protestants go on to declare that even if the Bible as a book cannot be its own interpreter, at least the Holy Spirit is infallible, and he can render each reader infallible in his interpretations provided he has faith in Christ and is prepared to rely entirely upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But if each sincere reader of the Bible is rendered infallible by the Holy Spirit in discerning the meaning God intended to reveal, what is this but to claim for each believer an infallibility before which the much more modest claims of Catholics to one infallible pope pale into insignificance!

But descending from the ideal plane to that of the real, is it not astonishing that millions of would-be infallible readers of the Bible are not dismayed by the fact that they arrive at a multitude of mutually-exclusive conclusions?

Results in practice make it almost a blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit has anything to do with such a host of contradictory interpretations!

Just consider the multitude of different Protestant churches which have been established in accordance with the immense variety of opinions arising from the private interpretation of Holy Scripture! Thus we have Lutherans and Calvinists, Anglicans and Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, and the host of more recent sects, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Witnesses of Jehovah, and an almost unending list of others, each claiming to be based upon the Bible.

The height of absurdity is reached by such extravagances as those of the Kentucky snake cults whose members believe they can be bitten at will by poisonous reptiles without any ill-effects, thinking their practice to be justified by a passage in St. Mark's Gospel: "They shall take up serpents...and it shall not hurt them" (Mark 16:18).

In reality, they base their practice on their own wrong interpretation of those words. Christ did not say that the miraculous sign he promised would be always operative for everybody. Among the signs shown by his followers sometimes even such things as being unharmed by serpents could be expected. But always it would be a miracle wrought by God when God willed, not a kind of magic within the power of deluded people when they willed.

The Acts of the Apostles tells us that St. Paul was bitten by a viper and that God preserved him from harm (Acts 28:5). But St. Paul was not guilty of presumption, deliberately allowing himself to be bitten and then challenging God to protect him--a form of presumption which our Lord expressly condemned (Luke 4:12).

When the devil told Christ to cast himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, quoting Scripture to show that no harm would come to him, our Lord replied, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matt. 4:7). Men have not the right to dare God to do even what they think, rightly or wrongly, that God has promised to do.

Even in the earliest years of the Protestant Reformation, during the Elizabethan era, Shakespeare made Bassanio say, "In religion, what damned error, but some sober brow will bless it, and approve it with a text" (Merchant of Venice, III:2). But it is doubtful whether Shakespeare himself foresaw such grotesque outbreaks resulting from the so-called principle of private judgment as those of the Kentucky snake cults!

What has to be noticed, however, is that such fantastic cults are the effect of the same principle as that claimed for themselves by the more sedate and respectable Protestant denominations which reject the authority of the Catholic Church and declare that they have the right to be guided by their own individual interpretations of Holy Scripture.

Bible and reunion of churches

There is a growing consciousness of the evil of all these divisions among Protestants today. They pay much more attention than they once did to the prayer of Christ "that they all may be one as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee" (John 17:21). More and more we hear them speaking about "the sin of our disunity." But the astonishing thing is that they still believe that the only thing needed to bring about unity is for all men to take up the study of one and the same Bible for themselves. This is merely to propose as a remedy for their divisions the very thing that caused them in the first place!

Catholic Attitude

In the light of all this, surely it is not difficult to understand the objections of the Catholic Church to the idea that each reader individually should constitute himself an independent judge as to the meaning of the Bible.

As I have suggested earlier, this is practically to claim that each reader is rendered infallible by the Holy Spirit as often as he devotes himself earnestly to the reading of Holy Scripture, a claim far in excess of any claim made by Catholics even for that one man only, the pope, whose infallibility is exercised on isolated occasions only and within the limits of the most exacting conditions.

What, then, does the Catholic Church say? She permits and encourages the private reading of Scripture. But she says definitely that no one has the right to interpret the Bible for himself in any way opposed to the official teachings of the ancient Catholic Church. Passing over the fact that the majority of people lack the required training in the many different sciences bearing upon scriptural interpretation necessary even for a merely natural understanding of the Bible, we have to reckon with the positive provision made by Christ for our instruction in his religion.

The Bible itself tells us that "no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). It tells us that Christ established and guaranteed his Church, that he commissioned that Church to "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19) in his name, and that he said of it, "he that heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16), and also, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen" (Matt. 18:17). No wonder St. Paul declared the "Church of the living God" to be "the pillar and the ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

That, then, is the Catholic position. Christ never made his religion dependent upon each individual's private interpretation of the Bible. His infinite wisdom would not choose a method which would lead, and has led, as we have seen, to division, chaos, and driftage from religion altogether. He established the Catholic Church, and that Church can say with her divine Master to those who profess to believe in the Bible that the very Scriptures upon which they claim to rely bear witness of her (John 5:39). She is the appointed guide to which, in obedience to Christ, we Catholics submit.

Speaking of the sixteenth-century Reformers, the eminent Congregationalist Scripture scholar, Professor C. H. Dodd, says, "In placing the Bible at the disposal of the uninstructed they took a fateful step. It could now be read, and was widely read, 'without note or comment,' without the guidance which had been supplied by tradition. To allow and encourage this was inevitably to admit the right of private judgment in interpreting it. [It was now] exposed to the possible vagaries of private interpretation, an absolute authority displacing the authority of the Catholic Church."

May the Holy Spirit enlighten your hearts as you consider these things,


 2009/8/24 0:07

Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK


Catholic wrote:

The Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, claims to be the divinely-appointed and infallible teacher at hand for this purpose, and hers is the only truly biblical position.

This statement would be laughable if it were not so serious!

Jesus said: 'by their fruit you will know them'. We all know the fruit of the Roman Catholic system, it is well recorded in history and even in this present day continues to exhibit the same bad fruit.

So I know without doubt that it IS NOT divinly appointed, but by Jesus' instructions on how to test teachers, it is clearly a FALSE PROPHET.

You are a Catholic appologist, so what will you appologise for?

The sexual abuse of tens of thousands of innocent children (still happening today)?

The murder and torture of tens of thousands of people who disagreed with the Roman doctrine?

The worship of idols?

Praying to the dead?

Selling forgivenss of Sins?

I could go on, but the point is 'By their fruit you will know them'.....

Your position is untenable! Even if God chose to use one organisation to preserve the true interpretation of truth, it cannot be the Roman Catholics, YOU FAIL THE TEST!


 2009/8/24 5:10Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy