Against Sola Scriptura...

Tree of Life said:

I'm writing an academic paper for my seminary program AND teaching two Sunday school classes on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. My basic thesis will be something like: "The Bible teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and therefore we should accept it."

In order to do a bang-up job I need to confront and dispatch the most formidable objections to the doctrine. What objections are you aware of? Also, if you could recommend a good book or scholarly article, perhaps from a Catholic perspective, which seeks to argue against Sola Scriptura, I would appreciate it!

Edit: By the way, let me define Sola Scriptura. The definition I'm working from is this:

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

Click to expand...

dreadnought said:

One has to suspect he said more than the things he is quoted as saying in the Bible.

Click to expand...

dreadnought said:

I don't think Paul was speaking for God when he said women can't speak in church.

Click to expand...

GingerBeer said:

What passage demonstrates what truth? Did you take the time to read the passage?

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"

But the passage below 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.

Click to expand...

GingerBeer said:

Are you sure about that? For example where did the prophets or the apostles write down the table of contents for the bible?

Click to expand...

GingerBeer said:

No, I do not believe that but what about you? Do you believe that without a fixed table of contents for your bible you'd be home and safe in salvation? The original post for this thread claims that the bible alone has everything needed for faith and practise so are you secure in salvation without the bible? Or is the bible an optional "only infallible rule of faith and practise" because if it is then you've abandoned the original post's doctrine of sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

dreadnought said:

Some people think Paul was always speaking for the Lord in the Bible. I think there is at least once exception to that.

Click to expand...

Standing Up said:

Let's say you wrote a book. How would you know it is finished? How would you know the table of contents?

Click to expand...

dreadnought said:

Here are the Lord’s words. He said that they all were gods, not just those who had received the word:

[6] I say, "You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
[7] nevertheless, you shall die like men,
and fall like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7 RSV

Click to expand...

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...

GingerBeer said:

Then you must know that the canonical books are never listed in the scriptures and the decision about what books were canonical and which books were not canonical was made by men and their decisions were transmitted over the ages by men so no matter what canon you accept it is a man made tradition and not a divine revelation unless you believe that man made traditions can sometimes be of as much authority as divine revelation.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

And what happens when a man teaches something that is contrary to scripture? Which do you trust?

Click to expand...

dreadnought said:

I don't think the Lord inspired Paul to say that women shouldn't speak in church.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

The Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci is displayed at the Louvre in France. Sometime in the past the curators and board members decided to display this work of art. By displaying this work of art they were confirming its unique qualities, its author, Da Vinci, and already universal acknowledgement that both author and his works were art.

Do we consider the Mona Lisa as art because of the actions of the Louvre or thank them for recognizing what we already knew....it's beautiful art?

Apply the same to the canon. The church did not make the books of the NT authoritative. They recognized their authority already.

Click to expand...

GingerBeer said:

I write the table of contents first as an aid to planning the contents of the book.

Click to expand...

W2L said:

Like what for example? What has God spoken that isn't written?

Click to expand...

THE W said:

aha, that's what this is about..

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

Yes one author would have a general outline which becomes the table of contents. Been like that since probably the scholastic era in Christendom, not 1st Century AD.

Click to expand...