Against Sola Scriptura...

[Tree of Life]

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.

The Bible does teach that it's necessary for Christians to be part of the Church and that the Church is the instrument whereby God has chosen to establish his kingdom on earth. But the Bible does not teach that the Church is infallible.

Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule for faith and practice.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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.

 

[HereIStand]

On a related note, Scripture can't be broken and it is God's revelation and Word to us. As has been noted though, Christianity places emphasis on spiritually hearing and understanding Scripture, not simply on hearing (physically) the words themselves. We can hear and believe or not hear (spiritually) and disbelieve Scripture's message. People can know Scripture well and reject Christ or be illiterate and have faith in Him.

Also, in Islam the words in the Koran are considered the literal words of God. The words are repeated over and over, even though by those who don't understand them or understand Arabic. It isn't that the Koran isn't studied on a scholarly level. It is. But there aren't Koran studies to understand its message in the way that there are Bible studies for Christians.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

Thank you. I've heard of this book. But it doesn't look like it directly addresses Sola Scriptura. No doubt early Christians believed dogmas that are not taught in Scripture. But this neither supports nor creates a problem for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, then these early Christians were simply wrong.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

You mean the fact that many have misinterpreted Scripture and their errors not Scripture have been exposed?

 

[fhansen]

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.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

Do Catholics agree 100% on everything the Scriptures teach?

 

[Tree of Life]

For the record, Sola Scriptura does not deny that the teaching of the Church is needed. Here's Charles Hodge:

“It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i.e. the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.”

 

[drjean]

RC Sproul, Ligonier Ministries will always give the argument against as well as the correct position. Understanding Sola ScripturaUnderstanding Sola Scriptura

 

[chilehed]

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!

Would that everyone would have that attitude about every significant issue!

I seem to recall that Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism discussed the topic.

And an important thing for me was my study of the Westminster Confession, which made the incoherence of SS clear to me. If you're interested, a long time ago I created a thread about it; it's called something like "Why I believe in the Magesterium of the Catholic Church".

I wish you well in your studies.

 

[St_Worm2]

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.

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 by it accept or reject what the Bible has to say), then there will be no objective truth left in it.

--David

 

[dreadnought]

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

The Lord told us to love our neighbor as ourself. Are you willing to stop talking in church?

 

[drjean]

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.

• Deuteronomy 4:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may k
  

• Deuteronomy 12:32 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  32 Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

• Revelation 22:18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
  keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

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.

Is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

 

[Afra]

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.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

Thanks. 1 and 2 will be dealt with in the first part of my paper as I demonstrate the doctrine from Scripture. 3 doesn't matter. 4 is an interesting objection but is probably beyond the scope of this paper. I'll have to think about whether I have the space and time to tackle that. 5 is good and I'll address that one. 6 is just heretical! But it may still be worth addressing. It's not really a Catholic objection, but more an unbelieving objection.

 

[Christian_Follower]

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.

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

 

[Tree of Life]

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

Yeah the emergent and postmodern views are an whole other problem. Can you think of any specific objections from these pagans that I could confront?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So the Bible is God, in a sense.

The Bible is not God.

Idols do not sneak into the church dressed as pagan monsters. They begin as things that are good, saintly, holy and even ordained of God. When these physical things begin to take the place of God, being treated as God, or are assumed to have traits that only God can have, then they become idols. Ancient Israel had its brass serpent. We have Mary, the Saints and the Bible.

God speaks authoritatively through Scripture, so an encounter with Scripture is an encounter with God.

God spoke authoritatively through prophets, but the prophets were not God. An encounter with the prophets was not an encounter with God. Most importantly, and I think often forgotten, the prophets were not infallible. It would have been a colossal mistake to stone a prophet for being a mere man, because that's exactly what he was. Even so, it was right to hold his prophecies to a perfect scrutiny, because God is perfect.

-/|O

Incidentally, I find my own position extremely difficult. While not acknowledging the Bible as perfect and infallible, I do regard it as the highest authority and sufficient for the building of all doctrine. In other words, I see it as better than everything but God, himself, as a foundation for doctrine. Functionally, I agree with Sola Scriptura, so I hate to argue against it and vindicate its opponents, with whom I disagree even more vehemently.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

You might be interested in this article "Barth on Scripture" on my blog by Dr. Van Til.

 

[Christian_Follower]

Yeah the emergent and postmodern views are an whole other problem. Can you think of any specific objections from these pagans that I could confront?

Take for example Rob Bell "Love Wins" ultimately ALL will inherit the Kingdom of God... Love will Triumph victoriously