Against Sola Scriptura...

[Tree of Life]

So there you prove my point: You believe that that Bible is God, and a lot of people agree with you.

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?

 

[dreadnought]

*ahem* Sorry but ^ is not so much a point as it is the logical fallacy of ad hom.

He said, "So the Bible is God, in a sense."

 

[dreadnought]

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?

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.

 

[truefiction1]

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 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.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

Wrong. Paul was formerly teaching OT doctrine and then goes on to teach what is not found in the OT. All of it is still God's authoritative word.

 

[Tree of Life]

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 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.

 

[St_Worm2]

I do not believe Paul and the Lord were in agreement over whether or not women should speak in church.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

He said, "So the Bible is God, in a sense."

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.

 

[dreadnought]

How did you come to this conclusion?

Thanks!

--David

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.

 

[dreadnought]

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.

But the Lord is more than his Word.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

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.

 

[truefiction1]

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.

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.

 

[HereIStand]

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.

Some of Kreeft's critiques of Protestant fundamentalism are flawed. He understands Platonism though much better than N.T. Wright, who misrepresents it.

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.

From what I know of Barth, I'm not a fan. But he is hard to ignore, especially on revelation.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

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.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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.

True the Scriptures is revelation from God, we go to them to hear God speak, to hear His voice. However, and this might help with your paper, the Scriptures also include the words of men, even the words of the enemies of God. For example, in the Creation account, the words of the serpent to Eve, clearly are not from God, however accurately recorded so they are true in representation, but deceitful in nature. Sorry struggling a bit today to put thought to words, hope this helps.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

But the Lord is more than his Word.

True that.

 

[truefiction1]

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".

Regardless, I wish you well on your writing project.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

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