Against Sola Scriptura...

[GingerBeer]

So you've seen at least one, and there are others, you will dismiss the exact same why.

If I dismiss the "other passages" in the exact same way then the passages will not be about sola scriptura nor supportive of that doctrine because the passage I did deal with does not support sola scriptura and I showed you it does not. Let me reiterate.

I have and you ignored them, but it's not that big of a deal. You don't deal with Scripture and that's to be expected. Keep running that tired rhetoric in circles and I will just simply watch and laugh.

I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" didn't you just try one passage from 1Corinthians? Or was that another person? No, it was you wans't it. In the post show below.

We can start with this:

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. (1 Cor. 14:36-38)​

But that passage says nothing whatever about the bible and nothing whatever about written revelation included in scripture. The passage ought to be read in its context. Here, take a look

1Corinthians 14:29 As for the prophets, let two or three speak, with the others commenting on what has been said. 30 If a revelation comes to one of those sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 Even all of you could prophesy, one by one, for the instruction and encouragement of all. 32 The spirits, speaking through prophets, are submitted to prophets, 33 because God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. 34 (Let women be silent in the assemblies, as in all the churches of the saints. They are not allowed to speak. Let them be submissive, as the law commands. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them consult their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in Church.) 36 Did the word of God, perhaps, come from you? Or did it come only to you? 37 Anyone among you who claims to be a prophet or a spiritual person, should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he does not recognise that, God will not recognise him. 39 So, my friends, set your hearts on the gift of prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 However, everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.​

The words being discussed are the words of Prophets in Corinth and the people who interpret messages given in tongues but these words are not in the scriptures, Paul does not include them in quotes in his letter. Obviously the passage is not about the bible which is a book - written words rather than spoken words. But you are welcome to search the scriptures to find a passage or many passages that teach what the definition in the original post claims to be a definition of sola scriptura.​

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

All I ask for is bible passages that really do teach what the original post defines as sola scriptura. Just passages that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" If you cannot supply such passages then clear the field and let somebody else try. Your post's reference to "rhetoric" is just empty bluster that signifies no more than that you do not have any passages that make the case for the definition.

"Here is the orthodox consensus of Sola Scriptura:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2)

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (I Tim 3:15; 1. I Cor. 2:4-5, 9-10; Heb. 4:12; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11, 59:21; Rom. 11:36: Psa. 19:7-11; II Tim. 3:15; I Thess. 1:5; I John 2:20, 27)

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (II Tim. 3:16-17; Gal. 1:8-9; II Thess. 2:2; John 6:45; I Cor. 2:12, 14-15; Eph. 1:18; II Cor. 4:6; I Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40)

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (II Peter 3:16; Psa. 119:105, 130; Deut. 29:29; 30:10-14; Acts 17:11)." SOURCE

Should be enough passages there to keep one busy for quite some time.

 

[GingerBeer]

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." - Irenaeus

I like the quote from Irenaeus but he wrote it before the new testament canon was decided and the gospel that came down to him was handed on verbally by bishops and apostles speaking it. The written gospels were in circulation in the early third century when he was writing and the scriptures to which he refers are likely the old testament scriptures and possibly a collection of letters and perhaps a gospel or maybe all four but he is not speaking of the bible as you have it. Context in history is important too. It is useful to know when a writer was writing and what the words he used meant when he used them.

 

[GingerBeer]

Here is the orthodox consensus of Sola Scriptura

You must mean "Protestant consensus" or more accurately "Presbyterian consensus" since your quote is from chapter one of the Westminster Confession of faith but even if that is what you mean your assertion is not correct. There is very likely no consensus among Protestant Christians about exactly what "sola scriptura" is.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You must mean "protestant consensus" but even if that is what you mean your assertion is not correct. There is very likely no consensus among Protestant Christians about exactly what "sola scriptura" is.

Sure there is a correct and incorrect definition of Sola Scriptura, it could be defined through ECF quotes, or since we're splitting hairs, one could do some historical research into the writings of the Reformers and beyond and through the consensus of Reformed confessions to understand that there is a historical consensus indeed among Protestants.

 

[mark kennedy]

If I dismiss the "other passages" in the exact same way then the passages will not be about sola scriptura nor supportive of that doctrine because the passage I did deal with does not support sola scriptura and I showed you it does not. Let me reiterate.

I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" didn't you just try one passage from 1Corinthians? Or was that another person? No, it was you wans't it. In the post show below.

But that passage says nothing whatever about the bible and nothing whatever about written revelation included in scripture. The passage ought to be read in its context. Here, take a look

1Corinthians 14:29 As for the prophets, let two or three speak, with the others commenting on what has been said. 30 If a revelation comes to one of those sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 Even all of you could prophesy, one by one, for the instruction and encouragement of all. 32 The spirits, speaking through prophets, are submitted to prophets, 33 because God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. 34 (Let women be silent in the assemblies, as in all the churches of the saints. They are not allowed to speak. Let them be submissive, as the law commands. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them consult their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in Church.) 36 Did the word of God, perhaps, come from you? Or did it come only to you? 37 Anyone among you who claims to be a prophet or a spiritual person, should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he does not recognise that, God will not recognise him. 39 So, my friends, set your hearts on the gift of prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 However, everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.​

The words being discussed are the words of Prophets in Corinth and the people who interpret messages given in tongues but these words are not in the scriptures, Paul does not include them in quotes in his letter. Obviously the passage is not about the bible which is a book - written words rather than spoken words. But you are welcome to search the scriptures to find a passage or many passages that teach what the definition in the original post claims to be a definition of sola scriptura.​

You post at random prophetic statements in a worship service and equate that with apostolic authority, curious, very curious indeed. We are still not talking about apostolic authority and certainly haven't talked about the prophetic witness of the Old Testament. Do you get dizzy talking this into circles?

 

[GingerBeer]

You post at random prophetic statements in a worship service and equate that with apostolic authority, curious, very curious indeed. We are still not talking about apostolic authority and certainly haven't talked about the prophetic witness of the Old Testament. Do you get dizzy talking this into circles?

I posted a passage in its context in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians but you say it is random and that is just not the truth. What I did is show that your claims about the passage are not true. I posted these words.
"I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" didn't you just try one passage from 1Corinthians? Or was that another person? No, it was you wans't it. In the post show below.

But that passage says nothing whatever about the bible and nothing whatever about written revelation included in scripture. The passage ought to be read in its context. Here, take a look

1Corinthians 14:29 As for the prophets, let two or three speak, with the others commenting on what has been said. 30 If a revelation comes to one of those sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 Even all of you could prophesy, one by one, for the instruction and encouragement of all. 32 The spirits, speaking through prophets, are submitted to prophets, 33 because God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. 34 (Let women be silent in the assemblies, as in all the churches of the saints. They are not allowed to speak. Let them be submissive, as the law commands. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them consult their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in Church.) 36 Did the word of God, perhaps, come from you? Or did it come only to you? 37 Anyone among you who claims to be a prophet or a spiritual person, should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he does not recognise that, God will not recognise him. 39 So, my friends, set your hearts on the gift of prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 However, everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.​

The words being discussed are the words of Prophets in Corinth and the people who interpret messages given in tongues but these words are not in the scriptures, Paul does not include them in quotes in his letter. Obviously the passage is not about the bible which is a book - written words rather than spoken words. But you are welcome to search the scriptures to find a passage or many passages that teach what the definition in the original post claims to be a definition of sola scriptura."

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Yes, but some of you believe Paul when he says women shouldn't speak in church, and defend your position by stating the Bible is God's Word, which is the same as being God.

That's not the same thing...

 

[mark kennedy]

I posted a passage in its context in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians but you say it is random and that is just not the truth. What I did is show that your claims about the passage are not true. I posted these words.
"I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" didn't you just try one passage from 1Corinthians? Or was that another person? No, it was you wans't it. In the post show below.

But that passage says nothing whatever about the bible and nothing whatever about written revelation included in scripture. The passage ought to be read in its context. Here, take a look

1Corinthians 14:29 As for the prophets, let two or three speak, with the others commenting on what has been said. 30 If a revelation comes to one of those sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 Even all of you could prophesy, one by one, for the instruction and encouragement of all. 32 The spirits, speaking through prophets, are submitted to prophets, 33 because God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. 34 (Let women be silent in the assemblies, as in all the churches of the saints. They are not allowed to speak. Let them be submissive, as the law commands. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them consult their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in Church.) 36 Did the word of God, perhaps, come from you? Or did it come only to you? 37 Anyone among you who claims to be a prophet or a spiritual person, should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he does not recognise that, God will not recognise him. 39 So, my friends, set your hearts on the gift of prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 However, everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.​

The words being discussed are the words of Prophets in Corinth and the people who interpret messages given in tongues but these words are not in the scriptures, Paul does not include them in quotes in his letter. Obviously the passage is not about the bible which is a book - written words rather than spoken words. But you are welcome to search the scriptures to find a passage or many passages that teach what the definition in the original post claims to be a definition of sola scriptura."

Ok let's start at the ground floor, is what Paul was saying the word of God?

 

[GingerBeer]

Ok let's start at the ground floor, is what Paul was saying the word of God?

Let's start with the passage, I quoted it for you a few times now. Try sticking to the topic. Does that passage teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"? It doesn't but I am awaiting your list of "other passages" that do.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's start with the passage, I quoted it for you a few times now. Try sticking to the topic. Does that passage teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"? It doesn't but I am awaiting your list of "other passages" that do.

Has to teach that scripture IS the Word of God
Has to teach that all doctrine, tradition, practice is to be tested against scripture

That alone will suffice for "sola scriptura"

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"

===================

You would have found the words in the Bible to prove sola scriptura.

No - you have to find "scripture" in the Bible to support the teaching of "sola scriptura"

1 Cor 4:9
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

And as noted above --
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"

Good luck with that.

Thanks!

"Sanctify them in Thy TRUTH -- Thy WORD is Truth" John 17:17

2 Peter 1:20-21 " 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Notice how Jesus uses the term "Word of God" in this example?


Mark 7:6-13
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

============================

1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Thus... Isiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word they have no light" is sola scriptura affirmed long before the NT.

But the way you use "alone" you defeat your own doctrine by eliminating all possibility of finding that doctrine in scripture.

If Isaiah had said "what is written scripture at this point alone - is the Word of God and the rule of faith" -- then not even the rest of Isaiah would be "valid" nor the remainder of the OT nor all the NT.

If the rule is used in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" but if you insert your wording into it -- then that text is saying that only the accepted scriptures as known at the writing of Acts 17:11 is the "Word of God" and only those texts are valid rules for testing faith, tradition and practice. Not the remainder of Acts not even the writings of the NT since the Bereans were surely not reading any NT texts while still non-Christian Jews.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's start with the passage, I quoted it for you a few times now. Try sticking to the topic. Does that passage teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"? It doesn't but I am awaiting your list of "other passages" that do.

The proposition is simple enough, if you are spiritual you must acknowledge what he is saying the word of God. Do you believe there is such a thing?

 

[redleghunter]

he Catholic Church presents a singular, unified body of beliefs; the catechism is the most complete and concise source of those beliefs

Which includes the following in which one Roman Catholic poster here denied earlier:

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture

​

 

[redleghunter]

But going by Scripture alone, the term "Christian" can legitimately mean a person who believes significantly otherwise from another person going by the same name.

How so?

 

[redleghunter]

I've met five Catholics who believe everything in the Catechism. And several hundred who don't.

See it quite often on the abortion threads. There's a Catholic who actually promotes contraception.

 

[redleghunter]

Most Catholics wouldn't even know everything in the catechism. But you seem to be purposefully avoiding the point. The catechism nonetheless defines Catholicism whereas the bible, used as the "rule of faith", defines many different and divergent systems of belief, some more, some less divergent from each other. Even JWs, going by Scripture as they claim they do, have the right to the name Christian, even if most of us would disagree with them on the definition of the term.

In any case Catholicism defines itself; individual opinions do not.

You make a point against your own position. If Catholics pick and choose what they will follow from the Catechism or even tried to interpret it differently (like the current Pope) then that does not make them Catholic.

Just applying your position against the Bible.

 

[fhansen]

How so?

Sacraments, or no? Real Presence, or no? Baptismal regeneration, or no? Infant Baptism, or no? Man's will plays a role, or no? Even the deity of Jesus is plausibly debated by SS adherents. This is so simple; the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a joke! Even if there was nothing to replace it with, even if the original oral teachings and the centuries of faith and councils and beliefs in general worked out by the faithful prior to that silly doctrine played no role whatsoever in our present day practice.

 

[GingerBeer]

The proposition is simple enough, if you are spiritual you must acknowledge what he is saying the word of God. Do you believe there is such a thing?

I think that your posts might try to stick to the thread's topic. Return to the original post and check what that topic is. The thread topic is not what you believe or what I believe. Stick to the topic and see how you go with a single argument (among many) against sola scriptura as defined in the original post. As a refresher the definition is "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice". And the single argument against it is "Where does scripture teach that doctrine?" The doctrine is not biblical. If that is so then sola scriptura make an unbiblical assertion in order to establish the bible alone etcetera.

 

[Open Heart]

My objections to sola scriptura are twofold:

1. The Bible simply doesn't teach it. The Bible teaches that the Scriptures are God breathed, profitable for reproof, instruction in righteousness, etc., but it NEVER says it is the ONLY source that is God-breathed and profitable. In fact I would say that the words of the prophets that were not written down were just as God-breathed. Basically, I'm saying that the verses quoted for sola scriptura simply don't prove what my interlocutors claim.

2. The Bible teaches that there is God given authority outside of Scripture.

• This begins in Deuteronomy 17:8-13 where the elders/judge and Levites are given authority to INTERPRET scripture.
• These rulings, which often take the form of additional rulings (like case law) are seen enforced later or explained later on in scripture. For example, the Prophet Haggai drills the Priests on their knowledge of purity laws, the details of which is not written in Torah. (Haggai 2:12-13)
• This authority was passed on to the successors, the Pharisees and Rabbis. Jesus instructed his followers to do and observe EVERYTHING they taught despite their hypocrasy (just don't do as they do). Matthew 23:1-3 "Everything" has to include Oral Torah.
• Paul speaks of obeying the traditions he has taught, including orally. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
• The canon of the NT was not closed until the 4th century. Until that time, Christians believed what they believed based on the authority of the Church. This was especially true in the days of the Apostles, before the gospels and epistles weren't even written yet.

 

[redleghunter]

What Christ and the others confirm in their appeal to the authority of Scripture is that it is the Book of the people of God. The people of God are those who abide within a Holy Tradition which is upheld by the power of the Holy Spirit. Outside of this Holy Tradition of the people of God (Israel, the Church) their lies wrongful interpretation and confusion (Acts 8:31). Your own Scriptural quotations which you've provided here bear witness to the role of the Church in bearing witness to the Truth to all nations, which She has done from the beginning until now. The Church has neither veered to the left (Romanism) with its logos bias, nor to the right (the Protestation of Romanism) with it's strong spirit of individualism, but remains the provider of Holy Tradition to those whom God chooses to grace with true membership.

Now, the repentance is the hardest thing, even for us, and it is the most needful thing for us all.

Then we should be in agreement we should find what is Holy Tradition in the Sacred Scriptures?