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.
True but it was not based in Rome and was not the RCC any more than it was the Church of EnglandThe Church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written.
My point is that the Catholic solution does not solve the problem you raise.
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?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?
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.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.
The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
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.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.
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.
It's less to do with abstract theorizing than it is to reading the Bible in a certain way: allowing it to be authoritative.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.
Are you really writing an academic paper on sola scriptura?Always.
How do you handle the fact that depending on scripture has led people into error, such as opposing the findings of Gallileo and Copernicus?
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.
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?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?
I think you oversimplify and misrepresent the Galileo story.
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.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.
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.My point is that the Catholic solution does not solve the problem you raise.
He was condemned by both catholic and protestant clerics.
They claimed he was speaking contrary to scripture.
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.True but it was not based in Rome and was not the RCC any more than it was the Church of England
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.
That is an extremely unorthodox view.
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?