Against Sola Scriptura...

dreadnought said:

Point being, you can't confine the Lord in a book.

Click to expand...

no one who holds to Sola Scriptura has ever done that. confine and define are two different things.

fhansen said:

Yes, it does. Having the Church as the authority solves the problem by replacing individual private interpretations with the historical understanding of the Church, supported by Scripture and Tradition. We end up with a unified body of beliefs, as should be expected.

Click to expand...

Still does not solve the perceived issue at hand. I'll make that point again the next time Pope Francis gives an interview....

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Gallileo was threatened with torture. He was condemned by both catholic and protestant clerics. They claimed he was speaking contrary to scripture. These are historical facts.

What do you suggest as a key to current day checking on scripture interpretations so that we don't repeat that error?

Click to expand...

Don't think any Protestants had anything to do with Gallileo. He was specifically operating in Catholic held lands.

However, thanks to the Protestant Reformation scientific exploration and discovery increased dramatically.

Cis.jd said:

Isn't Protestantism already a good argument against Sola Scriptura? After 30 or 50 years after the reformation, more than 300 protestant denominations existed. Today it is said to be in the thousands. All claiming to be because of Sola Scriptura.
When you ask for refutations towards sola scriptura, the first thing that should be asked to you is: "whose sola scriptura?".

Here is some videos, you can search for the full debates on youtube

Click to expand...

What is your understanding of Sola Scriptura, as what is posited above is not.

fhansen said:

Yes, it does. Having the Church as the authority solves the problem by replacing individual private interpretations with the historical understanding of the Church, supported by Scripture and Tradition. We end up with a unified body of beliefs, as should be expected.

Click to expand...

...except that it doesn't. There are plenty of doctrinal changes that the church or the pope have made over the years.

Tradition is persistently described in a theoretical way, just as you have done here. Of course it sounds good when described that way. The problem is that such is not what actually has happened.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

They did so.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther, Table Talk

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

Click to expand...

First, Luther was dead before Galileo was even born. Second, Calvin died the same year Galileo was born.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

And so, you counsel your fellow Christians to accept the billion year history of earth and the fact of evolution?

Click to expand...

I think this off topic but if you want to start a thread in the appropriate forum on incontrovertible evidence of evolution, then I'm sure many would love to opine on this unobserved phenomena.

redleghunter said:

First, Luther was dead before Galileo was even born. Second, Calvin died the same year Galileo was born.

Click to expand...

I diligently searched for the supposed quote attributed to Calvin, I used Logos to search, it does not exist, it's an invention by haters of Calvinism, an evil a stumbling block to cause people to stumble.

GingerBeer said:

I notice that you have not answered my question; you have not given a set of passages that teaches or proves that sola scriptura is taught in the bible. Maybe you haven't answered because you were keen to ask your question and decided to ignore mine but I have not forgotten that this thread is about sola scriptura using the definition that the edited version of the original post contains. It isn't about alternatives to sola scriptura. So show me the verses and the "good and necessary consequence" that leads to sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

Or the OP is actually about hearing arguments against instead of presenting his paper here which is not finished.

I also searched my old Ages Bible Software works of Calvin, and to be certain, searched his commentary on Corinthians, even though it is noted as from a sermon.

And I found an online source of the quote on talkorigins, along with the Luther quote.

Monna said:

Can you give me an infallible scriptural reference for this? By infallible I include the idea that its specific truths (i.e. statements) are so crystal clear, that there can be no debate as to its meaning.

What I know from the Scriptures, at least as translated into English, is that the Word (logos) of God is Jesus. That the Word became flesh and lived among men and women in a real world society.

Logos has been translated as 'word' or communication. Jesus is, as it were, God's "body language." Logos brings also to mind other concepts related to 'logic' such as Jesus is the root cause, the rationale, the argument, the reasoning, leading on even to the wisdom of God. By him and for him all things were created and continue to exist. (Ephesians 3:9-11; Colossians 1:16-17; Revelations 1:4)

Your hypothesis is definitely wrong. Because of the word 'alone.' By using the word 'alone' you exclude Jesus as the Word of God. Personally, I find it easier to accept that Jesus alone is the Word of God, because ... the Bible explicitly says He is the Word of God.

Incidentally, which version of "the Bible" do you consider Sola Scriptura: with or without the Apocrypha? - it does make a difference. Both cannot be.

Click to expand...

I don't know why so many are thinking the OP's statement is something new or even from the Reformation. When I was a Roman Catholic I already knew the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Ping to @Tree of Life as the CCC agrees with our definition.

truefiction1 said:

The problem with your thesis is that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not Biblical doctrine: it is merely a philosophy of the Protestant reformation.

Click to expand...

I was going to say something, but it really does all boil down to this. It's an idea made by men 15 centuries separated from the time of Christ.

THE W said:

no one who holds to Sola Scriptura has ever done that. confine and define are two different things.

Click to expand...

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.

Tree: "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!"

I speak as a former Theology professor who has served as an advisor on several research papers and some Masters and Doctoral theses. Your topic is far too general and complex for one research paper. So your project needs a manageable focus.
Consider these 2 examples of a more limited focus:
(1) You might employ a historical focus on John Wesley and his so-called "Wesjeyan Quadrilateral"--the Authority of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience;

(2) Or you might examine Clark Pinnock's reasons for changing his mind on your issue. Pinnock wrote a highly touted book on biblical authority and inerrancy, only to later renounce this belief in later publications.

Tree: "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?"
(1) General Revelation

(1) Progressive Revelation:
This issue is so complex that if you focus on it at all, it must be the focus of your entire paper. Let me give you just 3 of the many thorny facets of this problem:
(a) As the New Lawgiver in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus frequently negates OT teaching rather than simply bringing it to fulfillment. For example, contrast both Jesus' prohibition on divorce with the Pentateuch's easy access to divorce for men and Jesus' teaching on love for enemies and nonretaliation with the OT approval of retialiation and the desire for vengeance.
(b) Consider the fact that, apart from Daniel 12:1-3, most of the OT rejects the doctrine of postmortem survival. "Sheol" is often mistranslated Hell and cannot be deemed a realm of fully conscious postmortem survival.
(c) At times Paul distinguishes his own "opinion" from God's commands (e. g. in 1
Corinthians 7:25), thus raising the question of the line between opinion and revelation in Paul and the rest of Scripture.
(d) In 1 Corinthians Paul insists the women cover their heads for public worship (11:5) and commands believers to greet one another with a holy kiss (16:20)." Modern Christians treat such perspectives as culturally biased practices that can be safely ignored and in so doing raise the question of the elusive line between culturally obsolescent principles and binding divine revelation. Progressive Christians dismiss biblical prohibitions against homosexual sex acts as culturally obsolete rules. They justify this on the grounds (i) that the Bible knows nothing of a natural gay orientation and (ii) that the Bible never considers the possibility of 2 men genuinely loving each other with loving sexual attraction. The line between cultural bias and authoritative revelation cannot be determined solely on the basis of prooftexting. Reason and church tradition must also be invoked.
(e) Similarly, reason and church tradition must be invoked to address the tacit approval of slavery in much of Scripture and the failure of Scripture to explicitly condemn abortion.
(f) Jesus teaches that the Holy Spirit will teach His followers "many things" after Jesus' departure and that the church is therefore better off without His physical presence, so that this revelation from the Spirit can be activated (John 16:7, 12). The implication of the Spirit's permanent revelatory role implies the doctrine of progressive revelation and cannot be limited to our canonical NT.

(2) Canonical uncertainty:
The doctrine of Sola Scripture must address the thorny question of which books can treated as Scripture. Jude alludes to 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative sources for revelation. Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijoh as authortive Scripture (see 1 Corinthians 2:9). More importantly, you must address the question of why the Catholic Apocrypha, basically the extra books in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), should be rejected in favor of the Pharisee/ historian Josephus's version of the OT that Protestants accept. In considering this question, you must address the use of the Septuagint in our New Testament (e. g. in Matthew), a use that seems to imply an acceptance of the OT Apocrypha.

(3) Your must address the most basic objection to Sola Scriptura: the Bible cannot and does not comment on its own divine inspiration. Not only do the NT statements about biblical inspiration not claim inerrancy; they refer only to OT inspiration, without making clear the limits of the inspired OT canon. Thus, these 2 questions demand answers:
(a) On what basis can we accept these NT claims about OT inspiration without begging the question by merely assuming the inspiration of our NT canonical books?

(4) Objection (4b) leads immediately to a another twofold objection.
(a) Paul and Peter's epistles were included in the canon on the basis of their authenticity. But the modern scholarly consensus is that Paul never wrote the Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy and Titus), Ephesians and Colossians. The scholarly consensus is that Peter never wrote 2 Peter. These claims of pseudonymity are based on divergent theology, but mostly on radical differences of Greek style. Hebrews was included in the NT canon because of the erroneous belief that it was written by Paul.
(b) Even apart from all these problems is the tacit acceptance of the authority of Catholic church tradition to determine which books should be included and excluded in our NT canon.

(5) General Revelation:
It is arrogant to assume without careful investigation that pagans have no spiritual insights to teach us. There is no basis for claiming that no revelatory insights can be gained from general revelation that are not explicity taught in Scripture.

(6) The many contradictions and other errors (e. g. both historical and scientific) in the Bible:
It is naïve to claim that biblical errors are few and minor. Those who make this claim just haven't spent the many years of academic study on Scripture that I have. I will just add that I went to seminary and proceeded to a doctorate in Scripture with the goal of defending the traditional evangelic high view of Scripture. My slow (too slow!) acknowledgement that this conservative view is woefully false created one of my life's most painful crises. I had to decide that, above all, God wants me to be intellectually honest, no matter what the cost. I'm appalled by how intellectually dishonest Christians leaders are on this question, even lying about college or seminary conservative statements of faith to gain secure employment.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

How, in your mind, does this inform your opinion about the age of the earth and the fact of evolution?

Click to expand...

The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation since all we know of original creation is that it was, 'in the beginning'. Creation week is another matter entirely, the point of the Genesis account is that God is creator of life.

redleghunter said:

Nor has the Catholic church rendered an infallible interpretation of the majority of Holy Scriptures.

Click to expand...

And why should it? The interpretation is in the teachings that she's possessed since the beginning. Want to understand John chap 6? Read the catechism on the Eucharist. Baptismal regeneration? Read the catechism on justification.

redleghunter said:

Still does not solve the perceived issue at hand. I'll make that point again the next time Pope Francis gives an interview....

Click to expand...

That would make no difference. Make the point the next time he makes an ex cathedra statement, officially defining dogma. Personal opinions, even of popes, do not change church teachings, nor should they detract from or compromise them.

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...

If no one said it before. The bible doesn't say how we are to understand the word. So we need help from outside to interpret the bible, knowledge of the early church and traditions, and of course holy Spirit. An example would be: Jesus never says he is God. Even so through tradition and early teachings we know he is.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Except that Sola Scriptura does not speak to interpretations, it is concerned with authority and Scripture itself.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately if it were as simple as that, there would be no disagreements and denominations.

The principle is sound, the practice less so.

redleghunter said:

I know for a fact the Roman Catholic church teaches only the Trinity and not a Pentavarate.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification.