Against Sola Scriptura...

[BobRyan]

The Church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written.

True but it was not based in Rome and was not the RCC any more than it was the Church of England

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

My point is that the Catholic solution does not solve the problem you raise.

Indeed, we have 1400+ years of pre-Reformation Church history to investigate differences and changes and so on and so forth. For example, from the Wikipedia article on the topic of purgatory;

"While use of the word "purgatory" (in Latin purgatorium) as a noun appeared perhaps only between 1160 and 1180, giving rise to the idea of purgatory as a place"

and the topic "all souls day";

"In the sixth century, it was customary in Benedictine monasteries to hold a commemoration of the deceased members at Whitsuntide. According to Widukind of Corvey (c. 975), in Saxony, there existed a time-honoured ceremony of praying to the dead on 1 October. The Diocese of Liège was the first diocese to adopt the practice under Bishop Notger (d. 1008)."

Anyone notice the dates?

and on the topic of Mariology;

"In many cases, the views held at any point in history have continued to be challenged and transformed. Over the centuries, Roman Catholic Mariology has been shaped by varying forces ranging from sensus fidelium to Marian apparitions to the writings of the saints to reflection by theologians and papal encyclicals."

Differences in interpretation and authority indeed. So far as differences and changes go, the only real difference between Catholics and is Protestants do not all gather under the same roof.

 

[GingerBeer]

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.

Let me ask you a question. Where exactly does holy scripture teach that The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Let me ask you a question. Where exactly does holy scripture teach that The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

It is arrived at by implication of a number of passages of Scripture, similar to the doctrine of the Trinity, your favorite doctrine I know.

 

[GingerBeer]

The Bible is the Word of God. I don't think it's very easy to separate God's Word from his person. So the Bible is God, in a sense.

Paul's words in Scripture are God's words.

Surely it is a kind of idolatry to say, as your post says, that the bible is God. The bible is a printed book, paper pages, ink and a cover made of some material ranging from leather to thick paper. It is a thing made by human hands and decorated by human art. It is not even a god never mind being God. It's just a book.

 

[Radagast]

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

That's not a great definition at all. According to your definition, when God spoke to people in the OT, that wasn't the word of God.

And I'm wondering at the implications of "Word" vs "word" in your definition. Are you asserting that the Bible is the 2nd person of the Trinity?

For an academic paper, I'd use a definition from somebody that you could cite. Edwards maybe, or Hodge.

 

[GingerBeer]

It is arrived at by implication of a number of passages of Scripture, similar to the doctrine of the Trinity, your favorite doctrine I know.

Let's not digress into some other doctrine. Staying on topic is not a hard thing to do. If you think that a number of passages go together to teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" then okay, show them and explain how they contribute to the "good and necessary consequence" that leads to the doctrine. I await your reply.

 

[Radagast]

The Bible is the Word of God. I don't think it's very easy to separate God's Word from his person. So the Bible is God, in a sense.

That is an extremely unorthodox view.

 

[faroukfarouk]

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.

It's less to do with abstract theorizing than it is to reading the Bible in a certain way: allowing it to be authoritative.

 

[GingerBeer]

Always.

Are you really writing an academic paper on sola scriptura?

 

[Radagast]

How do you handle the fact that depending on scripture has led people into error, such as opposing the findings of Gallileo and Copernicus?

I think you oversimplify and misrepresent the Galileo story.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Although there are Scientific matters in Scripture, it is clearly not intended to be a Science textbook, but it is accurate and truthful where it speaks to Scientific matters, unless one goes down the slippery slope of not presupposing God is the Creator of everything called Science, and supposing man is the final authority over Scientific knowledge. Every Scientist, Christian or non, that has had a true thought concerning Science, or made a discovery, is actually not original, nor autonomous, but in a sense, thinking God's thoughts after Him, so that even through what is called natural theology, man's knowledge of truth is dependent upon the mind of God, and the point of contact is being made in the image of God.

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

 

[GingerBeer]

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?

Satan quoted scripture when tempting the Lord Jesus Christ, was Satan's quote an encounter with God or a sly use of a verse from the psalms in an effort to do evil?

How does this idea (expressed in the quote of your post above) illuminate the definition that you gave "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"? I ask because I know many Pentecostal people who have regular "encounters with God" that they claim predict the future, support erroneous doctrine, encourage people to utter gibberish phrases as a gateway to 'baptism in the Spirit' and similar things. These kinds of "encounter with God" do not seem reliable as sources for truth.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think you oversimplify and misrepresent the Galileo story.

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?

 

[GingerBeer]

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.

No matter what idea was in the mind of the poster who wrote that "the bible is God" it could not possibly be the revelation given in John 1:1. There it is the Word who is under discussion not the bible.

 

[fhansen]

My point is that the Catholic solution does not solve the problem you raise.

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.

 

[Radagast]

He was condemned by both catholic and protestant clerics.

He was condemned by some Catholic clerics and supported by others. I'm not aware of any Protestant clerics who condemned him.

They claimed he was speaking contrary to scripture.

The Catholic Church had indicated that they were prepared to change the "standard" interpretation of certain Biblical passages if there was incontrovertible evidence for the heliocentric model (which there wasn't, actually, until stellar parallax was observed two centuries later).

 

[fhansen]

True but it was not based in Rome and was not the RCC any more than it was the Church of England

Well, it might be convenient to think so but the truth is that the basic beliefs were the same even if the infant, adolescent, middle-age, and present-day Church may not look the same, having lived through a great deal of history that we can hardly even relate to.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Let's not digress into some other doctrine. Staying on topic is not a hard thing to do. If you think that a number of passages go together to teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" then okay, show them and explain how they contribute to the "good and necessary consequence" that leads to the doctrine. I await your reply.

Since you obviously have a problem with SS, tell me, other than the Bible, what else represents the Word of God, revelation from God?

Do not refer to Jesus as the divine logos, it has already been acknowledged if you were following the thread. Further where would we go to learn about Jesus Christ than the New Testament? The Church is not the direct source, tradition should not be equivocated with the Scriptures themselves. Let's hear it, if not the Bible alone?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That is an extremely unorthodox view.

For context, this was ToL's response;

"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?"

To that I might include:

2 TI 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

Inspiration
G2315 θεόπνευστος theopneustos (the-op'-nef-stos) adj.
divinely breathed in.

Personally I would not have used those particular words, and certainly do not, would not agree on the surface, but given more context, and that the Christ of Scripture is the Living Word in a sense, and how the Spirit uses Scripture, there is such an incredible connection, and to think when we read Scripture, we are reading revelation having it's origin not by the will of man, but from the mind of God.