Sola Scriptura Investigated

[Guest FrancisServusChristi]

Hello.

I am new here, so I hope you all do not find it presumptisioua to make a topic. I knoe some people here, and was asked to come here by Cris. I noticed that there were a lot of protestants who seemed to like vigirious, so i would like to post an argument i constructed, in the hopes that they(Or a Catholic, who also wishes to rip it up) will tear it apart, so i may improve it.

have been thinking over this argument for a bit, i sketched out the beginings of it when i was in Church(acting as Sacrastine, not participating in Ma#ss), however today i started to formalize it and write it down compleatly.

I do not claim to disprove Sola Scriptura with this argument, i plan to go in a different direction. This is still more of a logical investigation, and that is why i am posting it.



Anyway, here it is.

[b]Proposition 1[/b]-If Sola Scriptura is true then all infalible knoledge which can be known by man is contained in the Holy Bible.

[b]Proposition 2[/b]-If P(1) is correct then it logically stands that no infalible knolwdge avaliable to us exists outside the Holy Bible.

[b]Proposition 3[/b]-A direct declariation of Sola Scriptura is not contained within the Holy Bible.

[b]Conclusion 1[/b]-If P(1), P(2), and P(3) are all correct then it loically stands that the doctrin of Sola Scriptura is falible.*

[b]Proposition 4[/b]-If P(2) is correct(and thus by logical necessity P(1) as well) then no interpretation of the Holy Bible is infalible, unless directly stated in the Bible.

[b]Proposition 5[/b]-An interpretation of the Holy Bible deduced from reading is not infalible, as it itself is an interpretation, and not a direct statement by the Bible

[b]Proposition 6[/b]-There is no direct declariation of interpretation of the Bible, contained within the Holy Bible.

[b]Proposition 7[/b]-If P(6) is correct, then no interpretation of the Bible(Including Literalism) is infalible.

[b]Proposition 8[/b]-Therefore, if P(4), P(5), P(6), and P(7) are correct, then all interpretation of the Bible are fallible

[b]Conclusion 2[/b]-If all following Propositions are correct, then even IF the Bible IS the only source of infalible knoledge we would still be unable to gain any knoledge that we can be as-sured of as being infalible.

Let me explain, let us say that i say to you, the next words out of my mouth are infalible, however no infalible declariation of interpretation will be presentes along with the statement.

I then say "All red cars are red on Sundays if the Sunday is tomorrow"

I am proposing this statment to be infalible, however i am also proposing that no OTHER infalible knolwdge exists, therefore while the staemennt may be infalible initself, YOU can gain no certainity of infalible knolwdge from the statment as you have no infalible methods of interpretating it. Saince you have no infalible methods of interpretating it, you have no way of knowing infalibly how much of the statement(In the sense of distinguishing weather it is literally true, or only symbolically) is infalible

This "proof" makes NO claims of disproving Sola Scriptura, however (I beleive) that it DOES prove that even if Sola Scriptura is correct it is of no bennefit, as we have no knoledge of WHAT in it is infalible.

Please ask any questions you have, and please point out any and all flaws you find within it.

[dUSt]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I don't think proposition 1 is correct. Sola Scriptura does not hold that the Bible is the only source of infallible teaching. More so that the Bible is infallible in regards to faith and God. Sola Scriptura would allow outside knowledge suh as mathematics.

With that being said... I do agree with you conclusion that if the Bible is the SOLE source of infallible information then it would be of no use.

[Guest FrancisServusChristi]

[quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' post='1081734' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:03 AM']
I don't think proposition 1 is correct. Sola Scriptura does not hold that the Bible is the only source of infallible teaching. More so that the Bible is infallible in regards to faith and God. Sola Scriptura would allow outside knowledge suh as mathematics.

With that being said... I do agree with you conclusion that if the Bible is the SOLE source of infallible information then it would be of no use.
[/quote]


Very Interesting, however i think there may be a distinction.

I would(and i very may well be wrong) consider there to be a inherent distinction between "True" and "Infalible"

I would consider true to be something that IS the case, while infalible means something which connot, not be the case. I know that seems like cutting hairs so please let me expand.

I started to define it, however i think this will take some time, so please allow me a day or so to give a proper explination.

If anyone else has additional criticisms i would love to hear it:)

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

take the time you need, I think I understand where you are going with it, but I'm not certain of it.

[4588686]

I think I'm going to be sick.

[4588686]

Your basic point is arguable. Unfortunately, as you probably noticed shortly after posting this, the same thing could be said of a slightly expanded system like Scripture and Church Tradition. So to the extent that your argument is valid, which is debatable, it would also apply to Catholicism.

Anyway, you took a mildly interesting observation and tried to make a big complicated argument out of it. Probably because you were first becoming interested in Analytic philosophy and being a stupid 15 year old thought you'd try to pretend to be a philosopher. Also, your typing is appalling. That being said, I bet that nowadays you're beaver dam sexy and incredibly charming.