Against Sola Scriptura...

[W2L]

I was unaware of that.

Yes, the Jews were trying to get the Galatians circumcised, and Paul had to shut them down.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here are the Lord’s words. He said that they all were gods, not just those who had received the word:

[6] I say, "You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
[7] nevertheless, you shall die like men,
and fall like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7 RSV

That's true, it is more scathing in that passage then the way Jesus is using it. You are gods but you will die like men. His point was that those who received the word of God were called gods and the Scriptures cannot be broken. He was defending his statement that he was the Son of God.

 

[W2L]

But I didn't see anything in Mark 7:6-13 that suggested to me that Paul had the authority of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14:37

 

[mark kennedy]

But I didn't see anything in Mark 7:6-13 that suggested to me that Paul had the authority of the Lord.

This one does:

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. (1 Cor. 14:36-37)​

 

[dreadnought]

Yes, the Jews were trying to get the Galatians circumcised, and Paul had to shut them down.

Good for him.

 

[dreadnought]

1 Corinthians 14:37

And I can give a command also: Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, the Jews were trying to get the Galatians circumcised, and Paul had to shut them down.

Not just Paul, the Council of Jerusalem had reviewed the question of circumcision and decided in favor of justification by grace through faith.

 

[dreadnought]

This one does:

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. (1 Cor. 14:36-37)​

As I just told W2L, I can give a command also: Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[W2L]

Not just Paul, the Council of Jerusalem had reviewed the question of circumcision and decided in favor of justification by grace through faith.

Yes.

 

[mark kennedy]

But I didn't see anything in Mark 7:6-13 that suggested to me that Paul had the authority of the Lord.

I have no idea what kind of a point you were making with that reference.

 

[W2L]

Well, the Lord did teach many things that aren't found in the Bible (John 21:25), but I know not to put my hand on a hot stove, even though it isn't mentioned in the Bible.

That scripture says that Jesus did many miracles. It doesn't mention His teaching.

 

[mark kennedy]

As I just told W2L, I can give a command also: Love your neighbor as yourself.

This is the actual quote:

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord. (Lev. 19:18)​

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible, as we know it, hadn't even been created when Jesus walked the earth.

Luke said Jesus preached from "all the scriptures"

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

So it would be "news to them" that they did not have scriptures or that they did not know what the term "all the scriptures" meant. I think we can agree on at least that part.

 

[BobRyan]

That scripture says that Jesus did many miracles. It doesn't mention His teaching.

Other than all the texts that record his teaching like Matthew 5-7, Matthew 23-25, Mathew 10-12, John 14-17 etc.

 

[GingerBeer]

It you are looking for that identical sentence, you won't find it of course.

Read my posts and you'll see I never asked for that "identical sentence" in scripture. That's just one of the foolish canards that others have tried to foist upon my request. What I did ask for is a passage or several passages that teach what the definition says. Specifically passages that teach a 66 book bible (as accepted by the original post) and passages that teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" if no passages can be found that directly teach those things then passages that "by good and necessary consequence" teach it are acceptable. If neither of those things can be found then a simple and humble admission that the definition is a "man made tradition" is a good and necessary consequence of the failure.

 

[GingerBeer]

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)

You chose an excellent passage for showing that the bible is not alone as revelation from God and it appears from the verses you quoted that "the creation" teaches infallible lessons about the eternal power and divine nature of God. Yet isn't that very teaching contrary to the definition in the original post? Does the definition need amendment then? "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" perhaps it ought to say "The Bible is the Word of God and an infallible rule of faith and practice"?

 

[GingerBeer]

It's not lowering the bar. Your narrow inquiry leads one to question if we can knowing anything at all.

I may have missed it but what exactly do you find as authoritative to test truth claims?

I am sticking to the thread's topic. The original post asks for arguments against the definition that it gives; namely, "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" and the "bar" really is lowered when no one is able to show from the bible alone that the "bible" is the word of God and that the "bible" is exactly 66 books as the "Westminster Confession of Faith" says it is - the original poster being a Presbyterian he would very likely subscribe to a 66 book bible but if he has some other definition of what books are the "bible" then he is free to inform us all and we can proceed from his alternative list if he has one. The original post also asserts that "the bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practise" so in keeping with the request for arguments against the definition given I propose that "the bible does not teach that the bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practise" but I am more than willing to entertain any passage or passages that either directly teach the doctrine of the definition in the original post or a set of passages that "by good and necessary consequence" teach it. If that "bar" is too high for you and others to meet then just be frank and direct in your posts and admit that the definition is a tradition of men and not something taught by divine revelation given in the scriptures.

 

[mark kennedy]

You chose an excellent passage for showing that the bible is not alone as revelation from God and it appears from the verses you quoted that "the creation" teaches infallible lessons about the eternal power and divine nature of God. Yet isn't that very teaching contrary to the definition in the original post? Does the definition need amendment then? "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" perhaps it ought to say "The Bible is the Word of God and an infallible rule of faith and practice"?

I didn't write the definition, my understanding of Scripture as the rule of faith is from the Scriptures. I don't know how the definition came about or how I might word it differently, I'm not entirely sure it matters. The whole thing with the Bible being the 'word of God' comes down to alternative sources for God's revelation. I know what your getting at, God's revelation does come to us apart from the testimony of Scripture and there is still further revelation we get through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not that those are in conflict with the testimony of Scripture.

I have to admit, sometimes that word 'alone' gives me pause. We are justified by grace through faith, no self respecting Orthodox or Catholic would argue otherwise. Then Protestants will say 'alone', then it's kind of like 'hang on, what do you mean alone?'

We can talk about that, but I'm not going to oppose the propositional truth that Scripture comes first with regards to revelation as it pertains to faith and doctrine. If you think the statement could have been better phrased, I'm open to that, but the proposition is essentially sound.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[GingerBeer]

They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. (Romans 2:15)

The "they" in the verse you quote is "gentile pagans" and their behaviour is what shows that the divinely revealed Law is written on human hearts which appears to imply that divine revelation is built into human nature even if the humans in question are gentile pagans who happen to do what is good, just, and right according to the Law. How would that passage assist in proving that the "bible alone" is the word of God? Surely what is written in the heart of humanity is also divine revelation and hence a word from God? Or do you think otherwise?

 

[GingerBeer]

I didn't write the definition, my understanding of Scripture as the rule of faith is from the Scriptures. I don't know how the definition came about or how I might word it differently, I'm not entirely sure it matters. The whole thing with the Bible being the 'word of God' comes down to alternative sources for God's revelation. I know what your getting at, God's revelation does come to us apart from the testimony of Scripture and there is still further revelation we get through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not that those are in conflict with the testimony of Scripture.

I have to admit, sometimes that word 'alone' gives me pause. We are justified by grace through faith, no self respecting Orthodox or Catholic would argue otherwise. Then Protestants will say 'alone', then it's kind of like 'hang on, what do you mean alone?'

We can talk about that, but I'm not going to oppose the propositional truth that Scripture comes first with regards to revelation as it pertains to faith and doctrine. If you think the statement could have been better phrased, I'm open to that, but the proposition is essentially sound.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thank you for taking the time to engage with what I actually did write and for acknowledging that the definition given in the original post is objectionable for several reasons not least being that it is unbiblical. I am satisfied with your post's admission that the definition is troublesome. I think that the original poster has seen at least one objection to the definition he gave that would be worth answering in his "academic paper".