- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I don't know that anyone believes the Bible is not sufficient. We just believe there's more to it than just the Bible.
Upvote
0
Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient
- Thread starter Chandler50
- Start date
- Status
That is precisely what my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints tell me.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Yeah, have they presented you with anything that's less than 300 years old?
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
In fact you even predict that no Catholic will be posting in favor of Sola Scriptura - even though you just claimed that the sola scriptura model of testing all tradition and doctrine would show the doctrines and traditions of the RCC to be correct.
How odd that you are so certain that they would not leap at the chance to show objectively that their traditions and doctrines do measure up - in true sola scriptura Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:6-13 fashion -- even though supposedly this is exactly what they believe as you have stated above.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
BobRyan said: ↑
I do get that sometimes from people that have not read her books.
She wrote - that she did believe in the Bible as the rule for testing all doctrine.
===================================
"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be the rule of our faith. It is a leaf from the tree of life, and by eating it, by receiving it into our minds, we shall grow strong to do the will of God. By our Christlike characters we shall show that we believe the word, that we cleave to the Bible as the only guide to heaven. So shall we be living epistles, known and read of all men, bearing a living testimony to the power of true religion. {RH May 4, 1897, par. 9}"
There are a great many former Catholics in my denomination - as we probably both know. It has been demonstrated "to their satisfaction" - obviously enough.
Having ex-Catholics as part of any given denomination is not too surprising when you consider the statistics.
"The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic."
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants
so it is a bit surprising that you would make a statement about "only Protestants" would agree to the sola scriptura position.
But the point I made above was simply that the statement of "Sola scriptura" affirmation was in fact a statement she also agreed with.
I do get that sometimes from people that have not read her books.
She wrote - that she did believe in the Bible as the rule for testing all doctrine.
===================================
"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be the rule of our faith. It is a leaf from the tree of life, and by eating it, by receiving it into our minds, we shall grow strong to do the will of God. By our Christlike characters we shall show that we believe the word, that we cleave to the Bible as the only guide to heaven. So shall we be living epistles, known and read of all men, bearing a living testimony to the power of true religion. {RH May 4, 1897, par. 9}"
There are a great many former Catholics in my denomination - as we probably both know. It has been demonstrated "to their satisfaction" - obviously enough.
Having ex-Catholics as part of any given denomination is not too surprising when you consider the statistics.
"The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic."
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants
so it is a bit surprising that you would make a statement about "only Protestants" would agree to the sola scriptura position.
But the point I made above was simply that the statement of "Sola scriptura" affirmation was in fact a statement she also agreed with.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
What about them? What you're implying is the apostles neglected, the Holy Spirit failed, at writing down what was necessary so we might believe. This is contrary to what the bible itself says and what tradition through Irenaeus claims. You're saying your group will improve on what the apostles actually did provably leave us.
When asked to provide those oral teachings extant in Jesus' time, you and no one else can provide it, leaving it open to pure guesswork that led to factions (OO, EO, RC, P, etc).
PS And don't forget the key Tradition of a floating Pascha that was extant in Christ's time that OO, EO, RC don't observe anyway, substituting the man-made fixed Easter. The claim of these groups following Tradition rings hollow every time it is paraded for all to see.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Standing Up
On and on
Like what? Name three oral sayings and miracles of Jesus extant in Jesus' time.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Your leadership would disagree. In fact your two statements contradict each other. IF every doctrine you hold is in scripture, then you wouldn't need Sacred Tradition.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
That's worth bringing up, but when we think carefully about it, claiming that a dogma didn't get defined until there was a need for that to be done, still does represent a change in the church's doctrines, doesn't it?
If X was not a teaching but then became one...that would amount to a "change" to any normal user of the language.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No. I got a neck wrenching change of subject to something more sensationaly brain freezing: miracles.
"So, what happened to all those sayings and miracles of Jesus? They just vanished into thin air! No. I very much doubt that!"
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
