Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, it's a theory. It has no place in scripture and was not part of the Apostolic church. It developed later on and is merely a concept that's useful to any church that wants to augment the historic faith with new doctrines.

Except we've shown, many places, where it is Scriptural, and was part of the Apostolic Church. You're entitled to your opinion, but stop representing it as fact.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And yet Rome, Hippo and Carthage came up with the exact same Canon.
The Church set it in stone at Trent because of the Protestant attack which questioned it. BTW, there are no other branches of the Church. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism...

I expected as much. I am disappointed that you deny that our Eastern Orthodox brothers are members of the Church of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

First, it's not a theory. Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to his apostles, who in turn handed it down to their disciples (the early Church Fathers), and then to the next generation, and then finally to us. How do we know this? Well, for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the apostles and disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. Yes, you might say, but didn't Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., write everything down in their epistles and gospels? Yes, they did, but none of it was widely available to geographically separated disciples and it wasn't part of "The Bible" until the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage put the 27 books of the New Testament together in 382 AD, 393 AD, and 397 AD. At that time, it took on the mantle of infallible scripture with the Old Testament. Interestingly, Protestants today accept this Catholic "Tradition" of these 27 books of the Bible being divinely inspired. Protestants also accept the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday.
And this is the reason "Holy Tradition" isn't genuine. In addition to an absence of any guidance from Scripture that there is such a second stream equal to Scripture...the defining characteristics identified above are almost always absent. But the dogmatizing of new doctrines goes on anyway, always with the claim that the church always believed it, even though it hadn't.

There are some instances of Sacred Tradition in the Bible that are interesting. For instance, in Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:

"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is moreblessed to give than to receive.'"
These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.

[/QUOTE]

Tradition is really a strangely wondrous thing. I can assert that my Tradition is the one and only Tradition because it has been passed orally down from the Apostles to me and there is absolutely no way you can refute me, is there?

 

[Albion]

You're entitled to your opinion, but stop representing it as fact.

You don't get to tell others that they cannot say anything except with your permission.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I expected as much. I am disappointed that you deny that our Eastern Orthodox brothers are members of the Church of God.

I've done nothing of the sort.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You don't get to tell others that they cannot say anything except with your permission.

Then I do get to call you out when you misrepresent the belief of the Catholic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Tradition is really a strangely wondrous thing. I can assert that my Tradition is the one and only Tradition because it has been passed orally down from the Apostles to me and there is absolutely no way you can refute me, is there?[/QUOTE]
But what do you have to say about the Holy Spirit's Tradition, which we test with Scripture, with the authority give by the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium?
It is true, though, that you do assert your tradition, many places.

 

[Albion]

Tradition is really a strangely wondrous thing. I can assert that my Tradition is the one and only Tradition because it has been passed orally down from the Apostles to me and there is absolutely no way you can refute me, is there?

It's been done by me many times.

But what do you have to say about the Holy Spirit's Tradition, which we test with Scripture, with the authority give by the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium?

The RCC doesn't even know if the Magisterium thinks in unity on any particular issue, let alone have any Scriptural basis for it.

It is true, though, that you do assert your tradition, many places.

For about the hundredth time--traditions are not "Sacred Tradition." The two don't mean the same thing and aren't even spelled the same way.

No, we do not place anything on the level of God's word. That's what Sola Scriptura is all about--not theorizing that there is anything else that is the equal of Scripture.

 

[tulipbee]

How could something be considered inspired for 1500 years, and then said to be uninspired after all that time?

I'm sure more was added and then removed early on. Why didn't they have 74 or 72 books?

 

[tulipbee]

They were tentatively included by those councils. Later, during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the Protestants eliminated them for several good reasons--as being inspired writings, that is, although Anglicans and Lutherans retained them to be read for guidance in 'morals and manners' if not to establish any doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church responded to that by deciding to make most, but not all, of these books inspired.

I'm sure the count once reached 66 books but why didn't it stop there. Why did they keep adding more books and what is preventing them to add more today? Did they run out of books or what?

 

[Albion]

I'm sure the count once reached 66 books but why didn't it stop there. Why did they keep adding more books and what is preventing them to add more today? Did they run out of books or what?

It's not as though there have been a long list of books to choose between. The 66 are almost universally agreed upon. But what of the others?

First, "the others" aren't just individual books at random. The other 7 that are called the 'Apocrypha' and which the Roman Catholic Church includes in its Bibles are, essentially a package of books written between the last Old Testament book and the New Testament. The difference between the RC version and the Protestant versions of the Bible is mainly whether or not to include these. And as said, the Jews of Jesus' time were divided on that matter.

Other books are included by some churches, but these are mainly one or a couple of disputed books and the churches are ones most people have never heard of. Beyond that, there are a number of books that unorthodox splinter groups in early church history accepted but which are wildly unlike the rest of the Bible and teach false doctrine.

If you were to look at the books that some dissident groups in the past turned to, you can just about count on finding some false doctrine in them and, also, that they do not "fit" with the rest of Scripture.

 

[tulipbee]

It's not as though there have been a long list of books to choose between. The 66 are almost universally agreed upon. But what of the others?

First, "the others" aren't just individual books at random. The other 7 that are called the 'Apocrypha' and which the Roman Catholic Church includes in its Bibles are, essentially a package of books written between the last Old Testament book and the New Testament. The difference between the RC version and the Protestant versions of the Bible is mainly whether or not to include these. And as said, the Jews of Jesus' time were divided on that matter.

Other books are included by some churches, but these are mainly one or a couple of disputed books and the churches are ones most people have never heard of. Beyond that, there are a number of books that unorthodox splinter groups in early church history accepted but which are wildly unlike the rest of the Bible and teach false doctrine.

If you were to look at the books that some dissident groups in the past turned to, you can just about count on finding some false doctrine in them and, also, that they do not "fit" with the rest of Scripture.

I read the lost gospels and a few stories about Jesus childhood is weird. I'm looking into a church that believes in the inerrancy of the bible. That means they believe the bible was inspired by God like He really is the raw author. Do Anglicans believe in inerrancy and what do you think inerrancy really means?

 

[Albion]

I read the lost gospels and a few stories about Jesus childhood is weird. I'm looking into a church that believes in the inerrancy of the bible. That means they believe the bible was inspired by God like He really is the raw author. Do Anglicans believe in inerrancy and what do you think inerrancy really means?

When we turn to the topic of "inerrancy," there are complications. You'd think that that subject would be clearcut, one way or the other, but that's not the case.

Some churches insist on what it called "verbal inspiration," meaning that every word is inspired. But others believe that the teachings, the matters of faith, that are taught by the Bible are inerrant but that not every word and definitely not geographical and other incidental matters are to be considered literally correct.

There are many Anglicans and Anglican churches in this second group but there are more who believe that the Bible contains God's truth. These wouldn't say the contents are inerrant. The answer may depend upon which Anglican church one is looking at.

There are no statements about inerrancy in the Articles of Religion or other historic Anglican position statements. On the other hand, affirming the Bible against Custom/Tradition, etc. was the issue in an earlier time, such as during the Reformation. The attack upon the accuracy of the contents of the Bible by religious "liberals" was a movement of a more recent time, so you shouldn't expect to find specific references to the issue of inerrancy in the older statements of faith. The adequacy and reliability of the Bible is asserted in those documents, but that commitment was thought to be sufficient in those days.

 

[tulipbee]

How could something be considered inspired for 1500 years, and then said to be uninspired after all that time?

What's built by men stays build by men. If a man comes along and said destroy this big thing you built and he'll raise it up in three days, you'll tell him to bugger off cause this big 1500 year old thing stays. You refused to surrender to the holy spirit and change for the truths.

 

[tulipbee]

When we turn to the topic of "inerrancy," there are complications. You'd think that that subject would be clearcut, one way or the other, but that's not the case.

Some churches insist on what it called "verbal inspiration," meaning that every word is inspired. But others believe that the teachings, the matters of faith, that are taught by the Bible are inerrant but that not every word and definitely not geographical and other incidental matters are to be considered literally correct.

There are many Anglicans and Anglican churches in this second group but there are more who believe that the Bible contains God's truth. These wouldn't say the contents are inerrant. The answer may depend upon which Anglican church one is looking at.

There are no statements about inerrancy in the Articles of Religion or other historic Anglican position statements. On the other hand, affirming the Bible against Custom/Tradition, etc. was the issue in an earlier time, such as during the Reformation. The attack upon the accuracy of the contents of the Bible by religious "liberals" was a movement of a more recent time, so you shouldn't expect to find specific references to the issue of inerrancy in the older statements of faith. The adequacy and reliability of the Bible is asserted in those documents, but that commitment was thought to be sufficient in those days.

What denominations believes that every word is inspired? Can anyone list them here so we can check them out.

 

[hedrick]

What denominations believes that every word is inspired? Can anyone list them here so we can check them out.

there are too many denominations to list. In general the historic denominations: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, don't. But most have conservative offshoots, such as PCA for Presbyterians. Lutherans are pretty evenly split, with Missouri and Wisconsin synods believing in inerrancy. Southern Baptists and most of the evangelical and non-denomiationals hold inerrancy.

 

[BayouAngel]

Really, I did not know that the Holy Spirit had multiple personality disorder.

Are you implying that denominations outside of Catholism, in general, do not have the Holy Spirit, thereby making them unchristian?

 

[BayouAngel]

Some truths in what you say people.

But, the church of Jesus is 'Universal' 'Catholic'. The words of Christ say this. Tradition confirms this!

Meaning a non-Catholic church is non-Christian, yes?

 

[Goatee]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

 

[Goatee]

Meaning a non-Catholic church is non-Christian, yes?

No