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.
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".
Regardless, I wish you well on your writing project.
While I disagree with your premise (eg, I disagree with "sola scriptura"), you did solicit books which challenge your proposition written from a Catholic perspective.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.
While I disagree with your premise (eg, I disagree with "sola scriptura"), you did solicit books which challenge your proposition written from a Catholic perspective.
Thus, I would recommend https://www.amazon.com/Fathers-Know-Best-Essential-Teachings/dp/1933919345 by Jimmy Akin which endeavors to show the witness of the Early Church and how similar it is to modern Catholic thought. I've heard the book gets recommended a lot to catechumens making their way through the Church's RCIA process.
The relevance this book has to your academic paper is the case Akin makes that Catholic dogmas not explicitly recorded in sacred scripture were believed, professed and accepted by the Early Church.
NOTE: I'm not interested in engaging in a defense of [insert Catholic doctrine here] in this thread. The OP requested a resource and so I am attempting to provide one. Nothing more, nothing less.
How do you handle the fact that depending on scripture has led people into error, such as opposing the findings of Gallileo and Copernicus?
The primary argument as I've understood and also experienced right here on these forums over and over again is that different readers, all going with the same definition of Sola Scriptura, can disagree widely on the meaning of Scripture. Scripture can be 100% correct while its interpreters are not guaranteed that same degree of certainty.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 primary argument as I've understood and also experienced right here on these forums over and over again is that different readers, all going with the same definition of Sola Scriptura, can disagree widely on the meaning of Scripture. Scripture can be 100% correct while its interpreters are not guaranteed that same degree of certainty.
Would that everyone would have that attitude about every significant issue!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!
Hi again Dread, "love .. does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth" .. 1 Cor 13:6, which is why we Christians choose to 'make waves' at times (by telling people the truth/what the Bible teaches), rather than tickling their ears with something else.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.
The Lord told us to love our neighbor as ourself. Are you willing to stop talking in church?Hi again Dread, "love .. does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth" .. 1 Cor 13:6, which is why we Christians choose to 'make waves' at times (by telling people the truth/what the Bible teaches), rather than tickling their ears with something else.
Is it truly "loving" to do otherwise?
There are a couple of logical conclusions to consider as well.
1. If St. Paul was wrong and/or lied at one point in his Epistles, how can anything he wrote be trusted?
2. If Matthew 7:12 becomes the guiding principle by which we interpret the Bible and accept or reject what it has to say, then there will be no objective truth left in it.
--David
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.
Is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.
No, the Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Flee anyone who tells you that more is required to understand, or more is required to obey.
Off the top of my head:
1) The doctrine is not taught in Sacred Scripture.
2) The doctrine is refuted by Sacred Scripture.
3) The doctrine is not found in the tradition of the church.
4) One cannot hold to the doctrine and while asserting an infallible canon of Scripture. One must inevitably assert "a fallible collection of infallible books" or resort to foolishness such as "the books are self authenticating".
5) The doctrine necessarily leads to disunity in the church, contradicting our Lord's prayer for unity.
6) The doctrine is unworkable because none of the original greek or Hebrew manuscripts are in our possession. We only have imperfect copies that date centuries after the original, and thus we are forced to make educated guesses as to the contents of the original texts.
Any teacher of Post Modernism.... Look for information on the Emergent church movementI'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.
Any teacher of Post Modernism.... Look for information on the Emergent church movement
There are a lot of people who are against scripture only and use scripture in a twisted way for their views
So the Bible is God, in a sense.
God speaks authoritatively through Scripture, so an encounter with Scripture is an encounter with God.
From what I know of Barth, I'm not a fan. But he is hard to ignore, especially on revelation.
Take for example Rob Bell "Love Wins" ultimately ALL will inherit the Kingdom of God... Love will Triumph victoriouslyYeah the emergent and postmodern views are an whole other problem. Can you think of any specific objections from these pagans that I could confront?
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?