Against Sola Scriptura...

[Cis.jd]

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.

Isn't Protestantism already a good argument against Sola Scriptura? After 30 or 50 years after the reformation, more than 300 protestant denominations existed. Today it is said to be in the thousands. All claiming to be because of Sola Scriptura.
When you ask for refutations towards sola scriptura, the first thing that should be asked to you is: "whose sola scriptura?".

Here is some videos, you can search for the full debates on youtube

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

They did so.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther, Table Talk

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

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).

May I take it that you agree with this idea, that in the presence of incontrovertible evidence for a scientific idea, one must revise one's previous interpretations of scripture to go along with the new findings of science?

And so, you counsel your fellow Christians to accept the billion year history of earth and the fact of evolution?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

And all this time I thought the thread was about Sola Scriptura, a doctrine Baptists tend to hold to rather dogmatically. Let's save the YEC, OEC, TE debate for a more Scientific like thread k? Thx.

 

[Radagast]

They did so.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther, Table Talk

Hmmm. Luther died in 1546. Galileo published astronomical works between 1610 and 1632. I don't think Luther was talking about Galileo.

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

Calvin died in 1564. Same problem. I don't think Calvin was talking about Galileo.

 

[Radagast]

And all this time I thought the thread was about Sola Scriptura, a doctrine Baptists tend to hold to rather dogmatically. Let's save the YEC, OEC, TE debate for a more Scientific like thread k? Thx.

There are Baptists and Baptists, of course.

And sorry. I will desist from replying to our liberal Baptist friend.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Calvin died in 1564. Same problem. I don't think Calvin was talking about Galileo.

Thanks brother, saved me the time of searching through Calvin's works for the quote. Still curious though about the context if the quote genuinely exists.

Anyone see a volume of sermons by John Calvin here from Corinthians? I do not, maybe overlooked though.

 

[sunlover1]

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.

Maybe it's a blessing to be hushed, maybe we can't control our mouths
jk lol but seriously, you raise an interesting question

 

[redleghunter]

Thanks a lot! I'll try to look for something scholarly in there.

Good point . Oh too often we accept contradictory apologists for scholars. Some are but not many.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but no such quote exists from the library of works by John Calvin. Maybe you should have done some direct source research first, instead of relying on something worse than a differing interpretation.

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

You mean other than the list that proves it wrong.
1/ It was not what the early church believed or practised - it handed the faith by tradition of "what we taught you by word of mouth"
2/ It defies simple logic in two regards.
- Scripture does not say it so it is a self defeating proposition.
- Scritpure identifies truth outside of itself. in tradtion and the church
3/ It is not what scripture says - which says the "pillar of truth is the church"
4/ Jesus acknowledged the need for authority to rule on doctrine with the power to "Bind and loose" which means "rule on doctrine disputes" why so, if scripture is enoug? And if Jesus bound that power, how can protestants loose it?
5/ Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" and most apostles did not write and most could not read!. he said "do this" go and teach all nations. That is how Jesus designed his church. Not as sola scriptura.
6/ It was not possible till the last couple of centuries to have a sola scriptura church. Most could not read or afford it. The "sola scritprua bible church" is a modern invenation.
7/ The sola scriptura church has fragmented into thousands of bits because one every aspect of doctrine sola scriptura adherents disagree on meaning. Mutually exclusive variants of every aspect of doctrne from baptism, and salvation onwards. How so, if scripture is enough?

So tradition is all important.
8/ 7/ is because All churches view scripture through a lense of tradition to resolve ambiguity in it - some written eg confessions. and articles, others unspoken. The difference between catholics /orthodox and protestants, is they look at the early church and fathers to resolve those conflicts. To find out what scripture means by those who were taught by the apostles.
9/ The bible did not drop out of the sky, it was a product of church authority.. The early church ruled against early canons eg Marcions. So "what is scripture" is already a problem for sola scriptura.

The reality is you cannot unentwine scripture and tradition.
Authority tells you what is scritprue and tradition and authority carriesthe meaning.
10/ Unless you have the words AND true meaning. you do not have the word of God, only empty words.

They are all inseparable.
Or you end with the current free for alll produced by Sola scriptura that - even by the end of Luthers time - he lamented "there are as now as many doctrines as heads" that is the product of sola scriptura.

So how do we know that a valid eucharsit is that performed by a bishop in succession? answer...ignatius to smyrneans tells us, he and polycarp disciples of and taught John the apostle. So if you do not believe that, you are opposing John who wrote John 6!...so the interpretation of John 6 is carried by tradition.

I suggest you pick a different subject.
Sola scriptura is not defensible.

 

[GingerBeer]

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?

I notice that you have not answered my question; you have not given a set of passages that teaches or proves that sola scriptura is taught in the bible. Maybe you haven't answered because you were keen to ask your question and decided to ignore mine but I have not forgotten that this thread is about sola scriptura using the definition that the edited version of the original post contains. It isn't about alternatives to sola scriptura. So show me the verses and the "good and necessary consequence" that leads to sola scriptura.

Like I mentioned in my post - keeping to the thread's topic is not hard to do. There is no need to divert the thread to other topics as your question attempts to do.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

This is Hodge’s and Dr. Steven Anderson’s definition.

 

[Tree of Life]

Are you really writing an academic paper on sola scriptura?

Yes. For a seminary course.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

Are Catholics 100% United in their interpretation of Scripture? I deny that the Catholic system produces a unity of belief among the laity and even among clergy.

 

[Tree of Life]

You mean other than the list that proves it wrong.
1/ It was not what the early church believed or practised - it handed the faith by tradition of "what we taught you by word of mouth"
2/ It defies simple logic in two regards.
- Scripture does not say it so it is a self defeating proposition.
- Scritpure identifies truth outside of itself. in tradtion and the church
3/ It is not what scripture says - which says the "pillar of truth is the church"
4/ Jesus acknowledged the need for authority to rule on doctrine with the power to "Bind and loose" which means "rule on doctrine disputes" why so, if scripture is enoug? And if Jesus bound that power, how can protestants loose it?
5/ Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" and most apostles did not write and most could not read!. he said "do this" go and teach all nations. That is how Jesus designed his church. Not as sola scriptura.
6/ It was not possible till the last couple of centuries to have a sola scriptura church. Most could not read or afford it. The "sola scritprua bible church" is a modern invenation.
7/ The sola scriptura church has fragmented into thousands of bits because one every aspect of doctrine sola scriptura adherents disagree on meaning. Mutually exclusive variants of every aspect of doctrne from baptism, and salvation onwards. How so, if scripture is enough?

So tradition is all important.
8/ 7/ is because All churches view scripture through a lense of tradition to resolve ambiguity in it - some written eg confessions. and articles, others unspoken. The difference between catholics /orthodox and protestants, is they look at the early church and fathers to resolve those conflicts. To find out what scripture means by those who were taught by the apostles.
9/ The bible did not drop out of the sky, it was a product of church authority.. The early church ruled against early canons eg Marcions. So "what is scripture" is already a problem for sola scriptura.

The reality is you cannot unentwine scripture and tradition.
Authority tells you what is scritprue and tradition and authority carriesthe meaning.
10/ Unless you have the words AND true meaning. you do not have the word of God, only empty words.

They are all inseparable.
Or you end with the current free for alll produced by Sola scriptura that - even by the end of Luthers time - he lamented "there are as now as many doctrines as heads" that is the product of sola scriptura.

So how do we know that a valid eucharsit is that performed by a bishop in succession? answer...ignatius to smyrneans tells us, he and polycarp disciples of and taught John the apostle. So if you do not believe that, you are opposing John who wrote John 6!...so the interpretation of John 6 is carried by tradition.

I suggest you pick a different subject.
Sola scriptura is not defensible.

Thanks! Most of these are misunderstandings of the doctrine and the legitimate objections are easily dispatched!

 

[Tree of Life]

To clarify my statement - "The Bible is God" - The Bible is God

 

[Monna]

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

Can you give me an infallible scriptural reference for this? By infallible I include the idea that its specific truths (i.e. statements) are so crystal clear, that there can be no debate as to its meaning.

What I know from the Scriptures, at least as translated into English, is that the Word (logos) of God is Jesus. That the Word became flesh and lived among men and women in a real world society.

Logos has been translated as 'word' or communication. Jesus is, as it were, God's "body language." Logos brings also to mind other concepts related to 'logic' such as Jesus is the root cause, the rationale, the argument, the reasoning, leading on even to the wisdom of God. By him and for him all things were created and continue to exist. (Ephesians 3:9-11; Colossians 1:16-17; Revelations 1:4)

Your hypothesis is definitely wrong. Because of the word 'alone.' By using the word 'alone' you exclude Jesus as the Word of God. Personally, I find it easier to accept that Jesus alone is the Word of God, because ... the Bible explicitly says He is the Word of God.

Incidentally, which version of "the Bible" do you consider Sola Scriptura: with or without the Apocrypha? - it does make a difference. Both cannot be.

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks! Most of these are misunderstandings of the doctrine and the legitimate objections are easily dispatched!

No. Your belief is born of fundamental misunderstanding that has resulted in complete fragmentation of doctrine since the reformation.

The latin Sola means "only".
Yet without other things you do not know what the bible means.
And if you have the wrong meaning you clearly do not have the Word of God you only have your own words.
So therefore the bible alone is not the Word of God.
So without authority and tradition you do not have the Word of God.

Indeed your proposition is easily dis proven by simple logic.
By your own definition unless sola scriptura is stated in just those terms it is not the Word of God or infallible truth .
Therefore by that definition the Bible is not the Word of God, or sola scriptura is not true. Take your pick. But that is your only possible conclusion
Otherwise you have a self contradicting proposition. End of story.


I prefer to believe - indeed the true church believes - what Jesus handed the apostles verbally is the Word of God, and they were taught to teach, so what they taught is the Word of God - which was later recorded in scripture but only if you understand what it meant, not just what it said.

Jesus was the infallible source of truth, and he delegated that in some contexts as the power to "bind and loose". Which means infallible rule on law and doctrine.

So the bible disagrees with you! It identifies another source of infallible truth.

I suggest you listen to the testimony of THOUSANDS of protestant theologians and pastors from every other denominatino and none, who were forced to concede it was not true before coming home to Rome. The testimonies are out there on video, take Journey Home. You are bold to ignore the teaching of so many better informed people! Indeed..."sola scriptura" IS a manmade tradition of the reformation!

 

[GingerBeer]

Are Catholics 100% United in their interpretation of Scripture? I deny that the Catholic system produces a unity of belief among the laity and even among clergy.

What's that got to do with sola scriptura? It ought to be obvious that a room full of people who say that they believe the bible will produce a room full of different opinions about what this and that passage means. Not even religious groups as uniform as Jehovah's witnesses have absolute unity of doctrine. It is odd to expect any group, much less one with over a billion people in it, to have identical views on absolutely everything. Even the first missionaries and apostles in the first century had differences of opinion. Have you considered what is written in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's letter to the Galatians?

 

[chilehed]

..
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".....

That one was called "Why I believe in Apostolic Succession". The one on SS was different, it's here:
Why I reject sola scriptura