Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So there you prove my point: You believe that that Bible is God, and a lot of people agree with you.
He said, "So the Bible is God, in a sense."*ahem* Sorry but ^ is not so much a point as it is the logical fallacy of ad hom.
God does speak authoritatively in Scripture when he is directly quoted. I do not agree that the words of Paul are the words of the Lord, though I think in most cases, the Lord approved of what Paul said.God is not a book. But when I (or anyone) reads the Bible, God is speaking. God speaks authoritatively through Scripture, so an encounter with Scripture is an encounter with God. How can you deny this?
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.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.
The words of Paul in I Corinthians, "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord).."
what follows is Paul's personal opinion and not God's word and he tells us so.
Paul's opinion carries the weight of Apostolic authority but it's not something that the Lord 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.
How did you come to this conclusion?I do not believe Paul and the Lord were in agreement over whether or not women should speak in church.
One argument that I've heard recently from Peter Kreeft is that Medieval theology taught that there are two books, nature and Scripture. God is revealed in both. Although the theology appears to have come to fruition in the Middle ages, it has roots in the early church. Tertullian noted, "We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word."
Book of Nature - Wikipedia
Most Protestants would see nature as a source of general revelation, although not as a second "book" equal with Scripture. One exception is Karl Barth, who apparently rejected the theology of general revelation.
He said, "So the Bible is God, in a sense."
The Lord told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and it occurred to me I wouldn't want to be told I couldn't talk in a church.How did you come to this conclusion?
Thanks!
--David
But the Lord is more than his Word.Sorry, I guess you have a point, though he probably had John 1:1 in mind, the sense in which Christ is the divine logos.
Sorry, I guess you have a point, though he probably had John 1:1 in mind, the sense in which Christ is the divine logos.
There's no way to clearly show how Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture, because it simply isn't taught in Scripture, and since there had been a period of time wherein New Testament Scripture had not yet been written, compiled, and canonized, yet salvation of Christians was taking place nevertheless, then it must be admitted that something besides Scripture is needed for salvation. Hence, there is no such thing as "Scripture alone". Furthermore, Scripture itself calls the Church, not itself, "the pillar and foundation of Truth", so if the Church is as such, how can Scripture be "alone" the source of Truth?I won't have to deal with this as an objection since, before moving to objections, I will clearly show how Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture.
Some of Kreeft's critiques of Protestant fundamentalism are flawed. He understands Platonism though much better than N.T. Wright, who misrepresents it.I have a couple of Kreeft's books, he is a talented apologist and teacher of classical logic. His methodology is flawed though, however it is the same methodology used in run-of-the-mill Protestant methodist/arminian strands of Christianity. I could go into more detail, but this sums it up.
From what I know of Barth, I'm not a fan. But he is hard to ignore, especially on revelation.Correct, and Karl Barth, now he is a subject of his own, his theology is like chocolate covered dung. Maybe harsh way of putting it, but if a person looks into the Westminster Theological Seminary faculty critiques of Barth's works, the underlying errors behind his theology are significant.
There's no way to clearly show how Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture, because it simply isn't taught in Scripture, and since there had been a period of time wherein New Testament Scripture had not yet been written, compiled, and canonized, yet salvation of Christians was taking place nevertheless, then it must be admitted that something besides Scripture is needed for salvation. Hence, there is no such thing as "Scripture alone". Furthermore, Scripture itself calls the Church, not itself, "the pillar and foundation of Truth", so if the Church is as such, how can Scripture be "alone" the source of Truth?
Like I said. Sola Scriptura is a mere philosophy of man which came about as a reaction to Roman Christian corruption.
I do not believe that the words of Scripture can be separated from God's divine person. The Scripture is God's communication through which he continues to speak. The Scriptures are, therefore, God speaking.
Well my task will be to demonstrate the doctrine from Scripture. We'll see if I succeed. The rest of your post shows a misunderstanding of the doctrine. Sola Scriptura does not teach that Scripture is the only source of truth.
It (Sola Scriptura) does teach, however, that the Church is not needed as a source of Truth, but that one should rather look to Scripture alone which can lead either to one objective Truth, or in other definitions of Sola Scriptura, one's own personal Truth. The Bible, however, teaches that the Church is needed, for she is the "pillar and foundation of Truth".Well my task will be to demonstrate the doctrine from Scripture. We'll see if I succeed. The rest of your post shows a misunderstanding of the doctrine. Sola Scriptura does not teach that Scripture is the only source of truth.
It really helped me in learning how to defend Sola Scriptura, when I learned what it is, and especially what it is not, what it affirms, and what it denies. It is a matter of prioritization of authority, the hierarchy of authority for a Christian, just as there is hierarchy in Heaven and here on earth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?