Against Sola Scriptura...

GingerBeer said:

I am sticking to the thread's topic. The original post asks for arguments against the definition that it gives; namely, "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" and the "bar" really is lowered when no one is able to show from the bible alone that the "bible" is the word of God and that the "bible" is exactly 66 books as the "Westminster Confession of Faith" says it is - the original poster being a Presbyterian he would very likely subscribe to a 66 book bible but if he has some other definition of what books are the "bible" then he is free to inform us all and we can proceed from his alternative list if he has one. The original post also asserts that "the bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practise" so in keeping with the request for arguments against the definition given I propose that "the bible does not teach that the bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practise" but I am more than willing to entertain any passage or passages that either directly teach the doctrine of the definition in the original post or a set of passages that "by good and necessary consequence" teach it. If that "bar" is too high for you and others to meet then just be frank and direct in your posts and admit that the definition is a tradition of men and not something taught by divine revelation given in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

There it is again, that word 'alone'. I'm sometimes not sure what that means. I get the reformed perspective that it stands alone as that standard and canon, right there with them. I just don't see that as mutually exclusive with other avenues of revelation, if anything it's a unique confirmation.

There's nothing all that difficult about the bar being raised to high, the Scriptures are the word of God. You can't raise the bar any higher then that, I'm not sure how that is a problem.

redleghunter said:

Perhaps start with asking yourself "What does inspired Scriptures mean." It seems you are seeking this answer as every post I have seen from you never offers answers other than more questions.

Click to expand...

That is right. I do not stray from the thread's topic so I keep to the definition given in the original post and deal with what it says and what objections are rightly raised against it. The first objection that I raised is that the definition ought to conform to its own content and that means that the bible ought to define what books are "biblical" and then the bible ought to teach that "the bible alone is the word of God" and finally the bible ought to teach that "the bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practise" if the bible does not teach those things then the definition is not biblical and doesn't that mean it is a man made tradition? I think it means that.

GingerBeer said:

The "they" in the verse you quote is "gentile pagans" and their behaviour is what shows that the divinely revealed Law is written on human hearts which appears to imply that divine revelation is built into human nature even if the humans in question are gentile pagans who happen to do what is good, just, and right according to the Law. How would that passage assist in proving that the "bible alone" is the word of God? Surely what is written in the heart of humanity is also divine revelation and hence a word from God? Or do you think otherwise?

Click to expand...

I think the Scriptures are clear the Law is written on their hearts, sometimes defending, sometimes accusing. God reveals all of that on the last day, the point is that if they are responding to the lesser light of revelation they would respond to the greater light of the gospel, and did and do. All of this is intended to lead you to Christ, the incarnate and eternal Word of God. The Word of God isn't a book, that is the collective testimony of God's redemptive history as it pertains to matters of faith. Those Gentiles repented at the preaching of the gospel, many of those who were the natural branches didn't, when they had the very oracles of God.

Ok, so ye are gods but you will die like men. If that is true of the ancient Hebrews the word of God came to how much more so the Gentiles who were in grafted in? Let us not let this distract us from the fact that the Scriptures are our primary source, have you forgotten that? The Scriptures cannot be broken, they are foundational to faith and doctrine are they not?

BobRyan said:

And thank God we have one that is undisputed and irrefutable.

Click to expand...

While you are thanking God for an allegedly undisputed and an allegedly irrefutable definition of the books that constitute the "bible" you might tell us what this alleged definition is and where it is stated in the scriptures. Only one thing ought to be said before you reveal this alleged revelation from God and that one thing is "make sure that the passage (or passages) really do teach a sixty six book bible and really do list all sixty six of the books by name" and if you can't manage to find a passage (or passages) that do that then at least show us some passages that "by good ad necessary consequence" teach a sixty six book bible and clearly delineate which books are in the sixty six.

redleghunter said:

No, if the G man was in Protestant lands his research and discovery would have been unimpeded. Scientific discovery flourished after the Reformation in Europe.

Click to expand...

Protestant churches continued to oppose science but were helpless to stop it, lacking such complete control as the Roman Catholic church once enjoyed over the secular world.

mark kennedy said:

The Word of God isn't a book, that is the collective testimony of God's redemptive history as it pertains to matters of faith.

Click to expand...

You make an interesting observation. One that also contradicts the original post's definition. In John's gospel the Word is revealed to be Jesus Christ and it must be obvious to every Christians that Jesus is neither a book nor something written with ink on paper (or any other medium). That being so perhaps the original post definition ought to be changed from "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" to "The Bible a word from God and an infallible rule of faith and practice"?

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Protestant churches continued to oppose science but were helpless to stop it, lacking such complete control as the Roman Catholic church once enjoyed over the secular world.

Click to expand...

Protestantism didn't oppose the development of science, it was largely responsible for making it possible in the first place, same way with democracy. Bottom line, if there was no Protestant Reformation there would have been no Scientific Revolution, you need to learn your history.

GingerBeer said:

You make an interesting observation. One that also contradicts the original post's definition. In John's gospel the Word is revealed to be Jesus Christ and it must be obvious to every Christians that Jesus is neither a book nor something written with ink on paper (or any other medium). That being so perhaps the original post definition ought to be changed from "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" to "The Bible a word from God and an infallible rule of faith and practice"?

Click to expand...

Watering down the language isn't going to get us very far, 'a word from God' hardly says it. Am I supposed to discount the Pentateuch and the Gospels because they are simply a 'word from God' when I know God's revelation is rooted and grounded in those testimonies? The foundation of the Christian faith is Christ and the Apostles, that testimony is preserved in ink on parchment, communicated to us in translations that preserve that testimony. That rule of faith and practice isn't some semantical point, the Apostolic witness is crucial to Christian faith and practice without peer or rival. The question becomes, what alternative to the Scriptures should we entertain?

mark kennedy said:

Watering down the language isn't going to get us very far, 'a word from God' hardly says it. Am I supposed to discount the Pentateuch and the Gospels because they are simply a 'word from God' when I know God's revelation is rooted and grounded in those testimonies? The foundation of the Christian faith is Christ and the Apostles, that testimony is preserved in ink on parchment, communicated to us in translations that preserve that testimony. That rule of faith and practice isn't some semantical point, the Apostolic witness is crucial to Christian faith and practice without peer or rival. The question becomes, what alternative to the Scriptures should we entertain?

Click to expand...

I would not dismiss (nor would I discount) a word from God. God does not send so many words into the world that we can afford to dismiss or discount them. But the original post's definition is clearly not biblical and probably contrary to what is revealed in the scriptures so that ought to give any Christian pause about adopting it. I do not subscribe to "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice". I do not know what you would subscribe to but I offered alternative definitions based on the one in the original post to see if an alternative might serve the "academic paper" of the original poster better than the definition that he gave.

GingerBeer said:

I would not dismiss (nor would I discount) a word from God. God does not send so many words into the world that we can afford to dismiss or discount them. But the original post's definition is clearly not biblical and probably contrary to what is revealed in the scriptures so that ought to give any Christian pause about adopting it. I do not subscribe to "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice". I do not know what you would subscribe to but I offered alternative definitions based on the one in the original post to see if an alternative might serve the "academic paper" of the original poster better than the definition that he gave.

Click to expand...

Now that's a substantive response, my compliments. You just want to rethink the original proposition, let's talk about that. Let's try this without a single word:

"The Bible is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"

Does that help a little?

dreadnought said:

I believe the Word of the Lord is when God and Jesus are directly quoted. You believe that the entire Bible is the Word of the Lord, apparently. I doubt if we are going to change each other's mind any time soon.

Click to expand...

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures. Jesus did not write down any of His sayings as far as we know. But His apostles did and were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

mark kennedy said:

Now that's a substantive response, my compliments. You just want to rethink the original proposition, let's talk about that. Let's try this without a single word:

"The Bible is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"

Does that help a little?

Click to expand...

No, I cannot subscribe to the capitalisation of Word because that implies that the bible is Jesus Christ. And capitalising "Bible" makes it seem like the bible is more than a book more than revelation from God it almost suggests that the bible is God as the original poster said in the thread title of another thread that he started and finally I am not confident that scripture teaches that the bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practise. No doubt many Protestants thinks it is because their traditions tell them so but I have yet to see that claim supported by what is written in the scriptures. I'd also like some clarity about what "the bible" really means because I know of at least four differing Christian canons for "the bible".

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Protestant churches continued to oppose science but were helpless to stop it, lacking such complete control as the Roman Catholic church once enjoyed over the secular world.

Click to expand...

The time period you speak of both Protestants and Catholics accepted the science of the time and neither party made science a rule or article of faith.

Galileo was punished by the Catholic church not for his mathematics, philosophy and science opinions. He was disciplined because he opposed the theology of the Catholic church. As a layman that was a big no no back then.

GingerBeer said:

No, I cannot subscribe to the capitalisation of Word because that implies that the bible is Jesus Christ. And capitalising "Bible" makes it seem like the bible is more than a book more than revelation from God it almost suggests that the bible is God as the original poster said in the thread title of another thread that he started and finally I am not confident that scripture teaches that the bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practise. No doubt many Protestants thinks it is because their traditions tell them so but I have yet to see that claim supported by what is written in the scriptures. I'd also like some clarity about what "the bible" really means because I know of at least four differing Christian canons for "the bible".

Click to expand...

What does capitalization have to do with it. I'm talking about the word of God as it comes to us in the pages of Scripture. Jesus is the incarnate word that comes to us through the Scripture, in accordance with the Scriptures and as the key revelation of the Scriptures. Christ is the Word of God. That in no way should distract us from the testimony of Scripture that Christ affirmed in the OT and expanded upon in the NT witness. If you have another standard of faith and practice other then the Scriptures let's hear it, otherwise coming to terms with what it means for the Scriptures to be the word of God seems altogether appropriate. I don't have four canons of Scripture, that's not an issue for me.

GingerBeer said:

You make an interesting observation. One that also contradicts the original post's definition. In John's gospel the Word is revealed to be Jesus Christ and it must be obvious to every Christians that Jesus is neither a book nor something written with ink on paper (or any other medium). That being so perhaps the original post definition ought to be changed from "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" to "The Bible a word from God and an infallible rule of faith and practice"?

Click to expand...

Perhaps being to rigorous in dividing what is the written Words of God or Written word.

Here's an interesting search of "word of God" and "word of the Lord."

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Also "thus saith the Lord"

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)


I think the above abundantly shows why people call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God. It is the place to go to read or hear the very words and commands of God.

GingerBeer said:

Your post says "Scripture alone is where we find the rule of faith" but you need a definition of what is and what is not scripture. .

Click to expand...

And thank God we have one that is undisputed and irrefutable.

The Hebrew Bible of what we call the OT - 39 books where ALL are accepted by Christians who are nonCatholic, Catholics, and Jews.

The NT where all are accepted by Christian who are nonCatholic and Catholics.

The much-disputed apocrypha is promoted by some -- but it only matters if your argument is "Sola scriptura doctrine is not in the standard Bible - but it is in the Apocrypha so to affirm Sola Scriptura you need the Apocrypha".

And I have yet to see any Catholic make that argument.

GingerBeer said:

While you are thanking God for an allegedly undisputed and an allegedly irrefutable definition of the books that constitute the "bible" you might tell us what this alleged definition is

Click to expand...

Obviously - the 27 books of the NT
Obviously - the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible - the OT - (that the Hebrews divide as 22 books)

The "dispute" being the apocrypha which is totally off topic since no one on this board has ever made any sola-scriptura affirmation or denial based on something written in the apocrypha.

The topic of this thread is not even about the Apocrypha - it is about affirmation or refuting the Bible doctrine of sola scriptura.. not 'is the Bible to be trusted and why'.

GingerBeer said:

"make sure that the passage (or passages) really do teach a sixty six book bible

Click to expand...

Irrelevant since
1. not one person on this board has ever disputed those 66 books -- only "others"
2. and since not one person on this board has ever made that case that sola scriptura "IS found in the others ... but not in the 66".

The point remains.

dreadnought said:

And so they put it on the same level as God.

Click to expand...

they put it on the level of ultimate authority because it is from God.

BobRyan said:

=
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.

Click to expand...

This verse simply states you should not be cocky about your personal interpretation beyond what is in scripture, so that you don't end up in disputes with one another. It never says that, i.e. the Apostles didn't have teaching authority.

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

Click to expand...

Sure. And so did the Thessalonians, being typical Jews. What made the Bereans different was NOT that they studied the scriptures, but that they were open to teachings outside of normative Jewish interpretation.

Isiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word they have no light"

Click to expand...

Testimony is oral.

Again, no scriptural support of sola scriptura.

GingerBeer said:

Read my posts and you'll see I never asked for that "identical sentence" in scripture.-snip-

Click to expand...

Ok, good, 'cause it's not there. So what does the idea mean to say "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"?

To put it in the negative, we do not believe that the OT prophets nor the NT apostles forgot to write something down that is necessary unto salvation.

Fair enough? If so, let's start here. Do you believe that God failed to inform or failed to cause either the OT prophets or NT apostles to write down something that you consider necessary to believe, such that if you failed to believe that, you will not be saved?

For example, some denominations teach that for salvation it is necessary to believe that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ's birth. While God did inform us via prophetic writing that the virgin would conceive and bear to term, but was it God or His prophet who failed to write down the other parts of the dogma?

So, did God leave something out of the 66 book of Scripture necessary for your salvation? Yes or no. And then we can move on after laying this groundwork..

Is God authoritative and infallible? As the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit? Can God, them who're in part the whole be known and understood separate from the scriptures? What about being in Christ or in the Holy Spirit, is the Church not the body and holy?

What about having Christ in our hearts accepting him as Lord and Savior, being the Son of God; and in his name come to the Father in prayer, wasn't the Holy Spirit received in faith with Jesus in spirit? Both of the Father, being of God, authoritative and infallible; so the person and God in part or whole being two, three or more being authoritative and infallible?

Didn't God exist and come before the scriptures or the Bible (certain scriptures selected and accepted before then after by the Church)? If the Church collectively and individually aren't authoritative and infallible, how can the scriptures from it be so? Isn't it God, in all or any form the infallible authority; without him none of is more than material and vain?

Above are questions I'm seriously asking, especially to the original poster and defenders of sola scriptura. Before I started reading this thread and related references I was more for sola scriptura; now as I've learned the past few days is prima scriptura, which makes more sense to me. But even that isn't without doubt as things such as mariology are strange to me, not something I know and understand much about.