In debating a sola scriptura Christian theist, is it a good idea to disprove sola scriptura?
Posted on: February 10, 2007 - 1:00am
Offline
In debating a sola scriptura Christian theist, is it a good idea to disprove sola scriptura?
Here's a question that I've been pondering:
For the most part, the Christian theists I encounter and with whom I debate fall into two main categories. They are either sola scriptura (Bible Only) Protestants, born-again, evangelical/fundamentalist types; or they are Catholics (who tend to make church tradition as important as the Bible in establishing what is true and not true). This question pertains primarily to the sola scriptura Protestants.
When debating them, does it seem like a good idea to attack the logical holes in Sola Scriptura as a doctrinal concept or is this more of a distraction from the contra-theism argument?
- Login to post comments
Well, when dealing with those Theists, I tend to find myself as well trying to hammer away at the contradictions and errors present in the scripture. This leads to two general responses that never seem to lead to any productive discourse.
Reaction one is to immediately attack the logic of the non-theist and claim that we are fooled by satan, usually resulting to verses that claim "in those days they will be willfully ignorant" or the like.
The second reaction leads to a mental trick that has even my psychologist partner questioning how they manage to reconsile the differences. They manage to maintain their grasp on biblical inerancy by temporarily lapsing certain passages into metaphor or claiming they don't really appply anymore (the most common is to immediately disconnect from the Old Testament claiming Jesus changed everything).
A less common reaction is to claim that the non-theist is incappable of accurately inerpreting the scriptures as we have not taken the years of training in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Literary Exegis. I find this one is used less as their response to the follow up question as to how they know how to interpret the scripture is the simple "Because its so easy to see the truth of the word" response (leading to the immediate contradiction of the aforementioned rebutal).
In short, I find that despite the only obvious target on Sola Scriptura theists being the integrity of the scripture, it seems to lead no where. Which opens back up the question, what do you target then? I'd love to know too.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
Why don't you let them be free to think however they like?
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
I would never coerce someone or restrict someone’s freedom to think as they wish. I don’t, in general, go out and engage theists in unsolicited debates.
I do find, however, that many theists are more than eager to get into debates. Some theists actually find it to be part of their personal mandate from God to constantly talk about God ad nauseam. Some of these theists often exclaim “praise God” and “thank you Jesus” at some of the most inappropriate moments. These people lack a sense of decorum and respect for others, including respect for my right to be in a God-free environment. Therefore, when someone attempts to “evangelize” me, question me on what I believe or do not believe, or invade my personal space with theistic language, I believe that it is only meet and right and my bounden duty to engage them in a debate.
If they have the right to challenge or attempt to refute my arguments, I have just as much of a right to challenge or attempt to refute their arguments. So, it is not acceptable merely to “let them be free to think however they like.”
Why would you feel compelled to have a debate with them just because they wish to talk to you? If you don't wish to have a conversation you could simply say that you are not interested in talking with them. Are you interested in talking to them? Are you interested in them hearing your veiw on things?
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
It worked for me, Apostate.
HumanisticJones has some good points, and many Christians do act that way. But, many Christians who unconvert do so because they really took the Bible seriously enough, really read it, and refused to turn a blind eye to its flaws.
I was a Catholic who drifted away into Protestant churches and then came back to Catholicism before de-converting. As a Catholic the latter time I spent a great amount of time working with various Catholic apologetics ministries aimed at converting Protestants to become Catholics.
A major focus of the arguments against Protestantism, in particular "born-again" evangelicalism, is attacking the concept of sola scriptura. As Catholics we pointed out that the idea of the bible alone as the basis for faith was a very new concept within Christianity and that for the first nearly 1600 years the church relied upon tradition and the developing theology of the church fathers from the earliest days until the present. In other words, what Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, and so on had to say was very much part of the revealed tradition of the faith as scripture was. If a sola scriptura Protestant could viably see that there was no rational basis for the idea within the church's historical experience (in other words that it was a modern invention), and could see that the bible itself did not support the concept of sola scriptura, then they would be more inclined towards considering the Catholic position.
And so, this is what prompted me to pose the question within the context of atheism. Rather than dealing first with the arguments concerning god, is it of any use in the debate to attack sola scriptura first as a strategy to weaken their steadfast adherence to literal biblical exigesis? Many of the same arguments I used as a Catholic against sola scriptura Protestants could just as feasibly be used by me now as an atheist against these same Protestants to disprove sola scriptura. Instead of following up by leading them to embrace the tradition of the church fathers and personal revelation, as an atheist I would lead them to a contra-theism argument.
What I wondered is if this somehow would be actually a weaker position in which to be precisely because I wouldn't be presenting a contra-theism case, at least not immediately. Would my attack upon sola scriptura be perceived as a tacit acknowledgement of theism?
As for discussion on the matter, I was curious as to 1.) what the reactions of others in this forum are to the concept I present; and 2.) what the actual experiences have been with others in attacking the sola scriptura position.
How about you practice on me and see what happens, I'm game if you are.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
I'm going to assume that you wanted theists input so this topic is now in the atheist vs theist forum. Theists are not to post in the freethinking forum. Sorry for any inconvenience.
You haven't even responded to the points made against your position on the threads you've created. Are you getting bored with them?
No one has responded with anything other that a negligible comment. I can't talk anymore on this thread as they have made it FORBIDDEN so I must go quickly as RRS is coming and they don't allow freedom on the free thinkers forum.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
Actually I was preferring atheists to respond, not theists. My topic was not to debate sola scriptura itself, but rather the idea of attacking sola scriptura as a strategy for an atheist to employ while debating a theist.
More projection by Bodhitharta. Sorry for the intrusion, Apostate, but the thread would become a wasteland if Bodhitharta continued.
That's fine.
I haven't addressed Bodhitharta's comments because I didn't believe them to be germane to the topic.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
It's not germane because your not a sola scriptura Christian.
He could debate with someone who doesn't dodge questions.
I don't dodge questions and he may not run into someone who does not dodge questions. Besides it doesn't matter if questions get dodged the question is if he even understands what he thinks is his belief.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
Bodhitharta:
In the initial post that started this discussion, I stated this:Quote:
In a subsequent response, for the purpose of clarifying the discussion topic, I stated this:Quote:
I also stated this:
In yet another post, I stated this:Quote:
You will see that the questions you pose or the solicitation of a debate with me do not fall within the discussion topic here. Therefore, by definition, your comments are not germane to the discussion.
The following is from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
As for my aptitude for participating in a debate, you make many unfounded assumptions.
1.) In high school I participated in my school's debate team and was team captain for two years. I won district, regional and state tournaments and have trophies to prove it.
2.) I studied philosophy as a major in college and spent considerable time specializing in logic and epistemology as philosophical disciplines.
3.) I was employed as a high-school teacher during which time I taught and coached debate.
4.) I was a Protestant at one time and actively involved in ministry. During this time I had seminary courses on biblical exigesis among many other topics.
5.) I was a Catholic and also a seminary student. I engaged in plenty of study, more than enough to qualify me to engage in a debate.
Therefore, I ask that you observe the parameters of this discussion and maintain your comments germanely to the topic. If you wish to debate me or anyone else, pose your own question for debate in an appropriate forum.
Response from my own experience:
I've been using the method of refuting the argument by using itself, and nothing else (when possible, of course). This works pretty well in a logics and argumentation book, but not in practice, because fanatics simply don't have the necessary logics to follow up, and those who have don't fall into your cathegory.
Though this might not be the best logical sollution, how about trying to put them off by showing them just how non-Christian they are? Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers... they should be quite enough. And if they aren't, ask them why Jesus Christ didn't follow the laws (I'm sure you'll find many passages that demonstrate that). And if they say "the old laws don't go anymore", ask them about the 10 commandments and then Luke 16:17. That, at least, will show you who might be willing to discuss and who is a fanatic beyond any hope.
Tried these myself and found that some people can be reasoned with, and they will start falling in the more liberal area. There you should seek allies rather than enemies.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
What would you argue against a Catholic?
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
A Catholic that doesn't consider the Bible as the one true holy word, flawless and sent directly from God?
A Catholic that doesn't do moral or good things because of his fear of God, but because of just being a good, moral person?
A Catholic that is a Catholic because he holds no clue about the "beginning", but feels that "God" is the option for him?
A Catholic that truly believes that things change, and that humanity goes to the best?
A Catholic that believes in human justice, rather than eternal punishment?
Not much. Nothing important, anyway.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
We believe this, but we do not believe that one can interpret it without context from the Church and Tradition.
Catholics act for love of God, not out of fear. The pursuit of virtue is the same thing. We act virtuously to achieve happiness, in the Beatific Vision of God. Servile fear does not come into it.
I have no idea what you mean by "the beginning." But "God" is not merely an "option," as if I merely went deity-shopping on day and hit on Christ. God is something that exists and can be known to be so existing naturally without revelation.
I don't know exactly what you mean, but a Catholic has no impediment against believing that human beings act for the good.
I don't know what dichotomoy is being played here. It is a false dichotomy to oppose eternal justice and human justice, as the latter finds its root in the former.
Yours In Chrsit, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Not much. Nothing important, anyway.
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
This is the Atheist -VS- Theist forum. Besides, why turn down a debate? Debating was gremane to your question.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
showing them just how non-Christian they are? Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers.???
You are not aware of Progressive Revelation.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
It was originally posted in the Freethinking Anonymous forum.
This discussion thread started with a specifed question that I posed, re-stated, and further clarified. As the originator of this discussion thread, I wish to discuss the specific topic with which I began the discussion. If you wish to discuss something off topic, post your question for debate as a topic of it's own.
*sigh*
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
Oh, how nice. Again.
Bod, excuse me, but right now I'm in serious doubts on what religion you actually have. You debate Christianity, you quote from the Qu`ran, now you introduce some Baha`i religion elements... Could you, just for the record, make up your minds?
Now, perhaps you could tell me what direct messengers of God you have in mind?
Are you talking about Jesus Christ? In that case, we have Luke 16:16-18 or Matthew 5:18-19 to prove that Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers ARE STILL ON. And I could reference more, if you want.
If you aren't talking about Jesus Christ, then name your "new messenger".
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
You don't seem to understand that these are statements that uphold Law and not the punishment of such as Jesus showed that it is good to show Compassion and Mercy. So as I said you must understand Progressive Revelation.
Compassion and Mercy must reign supreme!
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
No, I don't understand that. For me it is pretty clear that the purpose of these verses is the old law to be still kept to. OK, we show compassion, but we can still show compassion even in the limits of the old law, too. Besides, the quotation from Matthew states pretty clearly that the law DOESN'T GO AWAY. What else do you want?
Besides, the logical question is: Before J.C., it wasn't OK to show compassion?
And if the answer to that is "no", then another logical question arises: If God is so mighty and powerful, why did he need to reveal progressively something which could be clearly understood by the ones before the messenger?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
The old testement said that it was best to be Compassionate and Merciful as well, it was not something new with Jesus.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
And there you have it, Apostate. Live proof for my advice. Try to convince someone just how non-Christian he/she is, and you'll get this kind of a response... What to make out of it depends on your wits.
Bod, should I understand that you agree with the first paragraph?
And as for a response, quote me some OT to support what you say.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I'm pretty sure we know what he's going to quote, Micah 6:8:
Of course you can justify just about anything in the Bible, and the violent bits largely outnumber verses like Micah 6:8. This verse alone doesn't show at all that the overall theme of the OT was compassion and mercy.
To make a reference to Christian scriptures, I regard it as a circumstance of casting "pearls before swine". I am fairly unflappable and generally fairly patient enough to endure poor logic and ad nauseam repetitive statements. At the same time, however, my time is limited and I see no point in wasting any time on Bodhitharta. He's only been a member of the forums for little more than a week and he's made 300 some posts. I've read quite a few of his posts in other discussion topics and can say that with reasonable judgement engaging him in more debate or discussion is pretty much a waste of time.
In the first instance, he came into this discussion from the very start not to participate in the topic I posted, but looking to engage in a debate outside of the topic parameters. Then, when we've tolerated his lack of germane discussion and awful arguments (if they can even be called arguments), he is still all the more confusing.
I will have some more to state on the topic of sola scriptura, but I will make it as a separate post rather than a reply that quotes what you said.
An observation that occured to me when I thought of this topic was that in the United States, Catholics are the largest single Christian religious group. In their belief and their praxis, Catholics are generally not fundamentalists. After the Catholics, several other Christian groups, Protestants, are not rigidly fundamentalist. Even though Lutherans and Calvinists technically do hold to a theological position of sola scriptura, they tend to be less rigidly fundamentalist about it and do have somewhat of an intellectual tradition that values reason and not mere blind faith.
What strikes me is that in these forums and within the context of most online-based atheist oriented media we focus the most time debating and engaging bible-thumping, born-again, evangelical fundamentalists. Yet these people are, relatively speaking, not the majority of Christians or theists.
So, I wonder why is it that the "fundies" are the most vociferous of the theists and why is it that we seem to tailor much of our own responses to this particular group?
It seems as though we are neglecting a need to engage a much wider Christian audience (and non-Christian but theist audience) that is not in the sola scriptura "bible only" fundamentalist camp when we devote so much energy to this narrow-focused group.
This is what prompted me to make the distinction in the first place between fundamentalist sola scriptura Christians and the rest of the Christians. I think that it is that significant of a theological difference between the two divisions of Christianity that we could practically consider them to be two different religions in their own right which almost necessitates a totally different approach when debating them.
Personally, I don't care to "de-convert" anyone, I just believe that they have been given a free pass for too long in our society to blather on about god and Jesus and coercively enforce their rigidly narrow view of social morality without being challenged.
I want to take issue and be nitpicky about the use of the word "debate". If indeed we were having a debate, then we would follow a more formal structure of discussion along agreed-upon rules. Anyone who wishes to engage me in a debate must be willing to abide by some mutually agreed rules of debate conduct.
As for how I would debate or refute a Catholic argument, I am more than willing to discuss that in another discussion thread if someone wishes.
I have AD/HD and I much prefer to keep discussion threads more closely on-topic and to launch discussions on additional topics as separate discussion threads. It's easier for me to identify and locate when I look at the whole list of active discussion threads when there are 100 topics being discussed with 20 posts each than to have 20 topics with 100 posts each. This is why I have been so nitpicky in this particular discussion about not wishing to delve into tangential discussions.