Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

My wills are based on circumstances around me. The air was already there for me to breath in. The wall was already there that caused me to turn left. The bank was there for me to deposit. The bank was there for the robber to rob. God put the bank there for both of us. I was happy. The robber was happy and God was happy. All three of us are happy. Tip: you have the wrong idea what God is. Why? You don't understand spiritual things of God. Who said so? The bible did. Who is the author for the bible? God is.

Has nothing to do with will. You're the one with the wrong idea of what God is.

 

[BobRyan]

When some non-Christian joins your denomination and asks to know "what does the church believe" - I think your standard set of instruction to them will be steeped in quotes from tradition -- and some Bible texts.

When some non-Christian desires to join sola-scriptura denominations such as the one I am a member we inform them first of what the church believes - via Bible studies - where the Bible is the primary source book not tradition.

The contrast of how that works out "in real life" may be seen on this very thread - we pick a doctrine on the Bible and how traditions/ideas/etc are to be tested -- such as the case in this thread and "we see" just exactly how your ever-present appeal to tradition to get to the answer - and my ever-present appeal to the details in the text to get to the answer -- are contrasted.

We are each simply showing in real life example in this case- what we are doing in our respective denominations.
Another great example of how this works out in real life is the posts recently on predestination free-will, calvinism.

My response: sola scriptura. Today at 8:38 AM #922
Just as we would have expected.

So I keep pointing us back to Mark 7:6-13 as it totally slams supposedly sacred/infallible "tradition" via the "sola scriptura" method. And you respond by resorting to any other source - but the actual text making the point.

Is there any post on this thread where you "interpret" a word or phrase in Mark 7:6-13 differently than my quote of it???

So then -- Mark 7:6-13 - Christ quotes Moses - quotes Ex 20:12 and says it is the "Word of God" - and that this is what refutes the claims of the magisterium.

The Orthodox do not believe in the "magesterium," that is an RC concept. It would help this debate if you bothered to actually understand our belief system.

That is a red herring - since nothing in the quote above says the Orthodox have "magisterium". I say that about the Jewish nation-church as the post clearly states - the church in Christ's day - not the Eastern Orthodox.

Also, again you are refusing to address my contention that in Mark 7:6-13 Christ is referring to himself, as indicated by John 1:1.

On the contrary - I repeatedly point to the "detail in the text" that what Christ calls the "Word of God" is the text of Exodus 20:13. At no point does Christ say to the Jewish Magisterium "you know you are in error whenever you do something that I say I don't agree with - since we all agree that I am the Word of God" -- that is not the form of convincing proof that he uses when engaging them on point in Mark 7.

 

[tulipbee]

Has nothing to do with will. You're the one with the wrong idea of what God is.

That's why God did the saving of His Elects only, not me nor men nor you. Knowing that shows knowing God

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am about 1/2 way thru this (very long) thread and I find it very interesting, but unless it is explained after screen 26 or I have missed it before that, could someone explain exactly what "traditions" the Catholics believe in? I was brought up in a Presbyterian church, but since have attended (regularly) Nazarene, Baptist, and Non-Denominational without ever having heard to these tradition. I have heard the statement that if it is not scriptural....beware. Can someone enlighten me...?

 

[Wgw]

I am about 1/2 way thru this (very long) thread and I find it very interesting, but unless it is explained after screen 26 or I have missed it before that, could someone explain exactly what "traditions" the Catholics believe in? I was brought up in a Presbyterian church, but since have attended (regularly) Nazarene, Baptist, and Non-Denominational without ever having heard to these tradition. I have heard the statement that if it is not scriptural....beware. Can someone enlighten me...?

On this point the Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians (the ones being killed in the Middle East, for instance) simply believe in the interpretation of Scripture consistent with the values of the early Church as opposed to those of John Calvin. Actually in his Institutes, Calvin attempted to justify his position in terms of Patristics, but his knowledge of the early Church was superficial and his thesis full of errors, although he was signifigantly more literate in these matters than many modern Calvinist apologists. The Roman Catholics had in fact deviated in relation to the early church due to the emergence of Scholastic theology, which altered their perspective, from an Orthodox point of view, however, in the theology of the Eastern Catholic churches one finds essential continuity with the early church.

 

[tulipbee]

I am about 1/2 way thru this (very long) thread and I find it very interesting, but unless it is explained after screen 26 or I have missed it before that, could someone explain exactly what "traditions" the Catholics believe in? I was brought up in a Presbyterian church, but since have attended (regularly) Nazarene, Baptist, and Non-Denominational without ever having heard to these tradition. I have heard the statement that if it is not scriptural....beware. Can someone enlighten me...?

It's a lot like Pentecostals. If someone makes an emotional vocal outburst, they claim it's from God and call it tongues and pick parts from the bible to support it. Same with RCC. If someone dreams up a new tradition, they say it's from God and they pick parts from the bible to support it. Both are lies. Presbyters teaches the truths and you don't hear about tongues or traditions cause they don't have time for lies nor they are found in the bible. It's better to stick with the true churches.

 

[Wgw]

It's a lot like Pentecostals. If someone makes an emotional vocal outburst, they claim it's from God and call it tongues and pick parts from the bible to support it. Same with RCC. If someone dreams up a new tradition, they say it's from God and they pick parts from the bible to support it. Both are lies. Presbyters teaches the truths and you don't hear about tongues or traditions cause they don't have time for lies nor they are found in the bible. It's better to stick with the true churches.

In the case of the Orthodox on the other hand it is nigh impossible to identify any substantial innovations in praxis or theology. The liturgy of my own church dates in part from the third century and in part even earlier, and has existed in its present form for around 600 years, albeit with no really substantial changes since the sixth century.

 

[tulipbee]

In the case of the Orthodox on the other hand it is nigh impossible to identify any substantial innovations in praxis or theology. The liturgy of my own church dates in part from the third century and in part even earlier, and has existed in its present form for around 600 years, albeit with no really substantial changes since the sixth century.

I be read the histories of denominations and don't have much time for any more. It's easy to see denominations talk more about earning salvation through works without having faith first that does works on its own afterwards. If I see faith precedes regeneration, that's the clue the denomination is not one I want to be members of. Fore fathers are equivalent to Billy Graham like pastors. No difference.

 

[Albion]

I be read the histories of denominations and don't have much time for any more. It's easy to see denominations talk more about earning salvation through works without having faith first that does works on its own afterwards.

There actually aren't very many denominations that do this.

In other words, you shouldn't have any difficulty finding what you seek among the various Christian churches.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

In the case of the Orthodox on the other hand it is nigh impossible to identify any substantial innovations in praxis or theology.

Then it would be the only institution in the history of humanity that has not been prone to change. You ate your elephant one bite at a time, and it's impossible for you to see how at any time you managed to swallow an elephant.

 

[Wgw]

Then it would be the only institution in the history of humanity that has not been prone to change. You ate your elephant one bite at a time, and it's impossible for you to see how at any time you managed to swallow an elephant.

Actually that is an accurate description of the Orthodox Church - it has not changed in any meaningful way since the time of Jesus Christ, which is in accord with the oromise of our Lord that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The unchanging nature of the Orthodox Church simply validates its status as the apostolic faith. It is a verifiable fact that since then, however, all of the other ancient faiths, even Zoroastrianism, have undergone changes (since Pentecost, Zoroastrianism went through two major changes to its theology, Hinduism went through about five, and Judaism and Samaritanism also changed radically). So one can make the case that the Eastern churches (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East) represent the oldest religion on the planet, which is Christianity in its unmodified, apostolic form.

Not only the oldest, but also, continually practiced.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's why God did the saving of His Elects only, not me nor men nor you. Knowing that shows knowing God

Well, now we know what you are...

 

[civilwarbuff]

OK, so I skipped ahead cuz I couldn't catch up. Something occured to me. Gonna post a little info here so bear with me.

The Pharisees: In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were mostly middle-class businessmen, and therefore were in contact with the common man. The Pharisees were held in much higher esteem by the common man than the Sadducees. Though they were a minority in the Sanhedrin and held a minority number of positions as priests, they seemed to control the decision making of the Sanhedrin far more than the Sadducees did, again because they had the support of the people.

Religiously, they accepted the written Word as inspired by God. At the time of Christ's earthly ministry, this would have been what is now our Old Testament. But they also gave equal authority to oral tradition and attempted to defend this position by saying it went all the way back to Moses. Evolving over the centuries, these traditions added to God's Word, which is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2), and the Pharisees sought to strictly obey these traditions along with the Old Testament. The Gospels abound with examples of the Pharisees treating these traditions as equal to God's Word (Matthew 9:14; 15:1-9; 23:5; 23:16, 23, Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:42). However, they did remain true to God's Word in reference to certain other important doctrines. (from Wiki)

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch;[1] Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ mäts'hafä henok) is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC.[2]

It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. Most Christian denominations and traditions may accept the Books of Enoch as having some historical or theological interest or significance, but they generally regard the Books of Enoch as non-canonical or non-inspired.[3] It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian group.
(from gotquestions.org)
Jude quotes the Book of Enoch: Jude 1:14 And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Jude quotes from tradition, not a recognized book by Jews or most Christians. Since the early church was mostly converted Jews does it make sense that this "tradition" to use "Tradition" became incorporated in the early church and then RCC? Not saying it is correct or right, but maybe at least explains the how of it occuring? Probably been brought up before but new to me. Going a few steps further can an argument be made to 1) Consider that RCC Tradition has merit and/or 2) At least one of the books of Enoch may be scriptual? Granted, big leap based on 2 verses.......Opinions?

 

[tulipbee]

Well, now we know what you are...

I don't matter. Just proclaiming the gospel.

 

[BobRyan]

I am about 1/2 way thru this (very long) thread and I find it very interesting, but unless it is explained after screen 26 or I have missed it before that, could someone explain exactly what "traditions" the Catholics believe in? I was brought up in a Presbyterian church, but since have attended (regularly) Nazarene, Baptist, and Non-Denominational without ever having heard to these tradition. I have heard the statement that if it is not scriptural....beware. Can someone enlighten me...?

praying to the dead "communion with the dead" as they call it.
purgatory
indulgences
confecting the "body soul and divinity of Christ" each mass.
adding the apocrypha to the Bible.
infallible papal "ex cathedra" statements
Infallible ecumenical church councils (Lateran IV and "Extermination of heretics" for example)
... lots more.

 

[civilwarbuff]

praying to the dead "communion with the dead" as they call it.
purgatory
indulgences
confecting the "body soul and divinity of Christ" each mass.
adding the apocrypha to the Bible.
infallible papal "ex cathedra" statements
Infallible ecumenical church councils (Lateran IV and "Extermination of heretics" for example)
... lots more.

That is pretty much along the lines with what I have always had problems with....just never really heard anyone call them "Traditions". Not something they preach about much in Protestant churches.

 

[Albion]

Jude quotes from tradition, not a recognized book by Jews or most Christians. Since the early church was mostly converted Jews does it make sense that this "tradition" to use "Tradition" became incorporated in the early church and then RCC?

No, tradition is not "Holy Tradition" and the latter was not a feature of the church of the first century.

Holy Tradition, so-called, is an alleged second source of divine revelation given by God because his revealed word in Scripture is inadequate for Christians after the Apostolic age. It is supposedly identified by these characteristics--continuously believed in the Church since the start and believed throughout the whole of the Church. EVEN IF there were any basis for this theory of a second and equal source of divine revelation, the fact remains that the ideas that have been made into dogmas by the Catholic churches don't conform to the requirements that are supposed to be met before any custom, tradition, legend, etc. can be true by "Holy Tradition."

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, tradition is not "Holy Tradition" and the latter was not a feature of the church of the first century.

Holy Tradition, so-called, is an alleged second source of divine revelation given by God because his revealed word in Scripture is inadequate for Christians after the Apostolic age. It is supposedly identified by these characteristics--continuously believed in the Church since the start and believed throughout the whole of the Church. EVEN IF there were any basis for this theory of a second and equal source of divine revelation, the fact remains that the ideas that have been made into dogmas by the Catholic churches don't conform to the requirements that are supposed to be met before any custom, tradition, legend, etc. can be true by "Holy Tradition."

OK, ease up....I am not a shill for RCC....this is all new territory for me. I could use some sources for what you say tho...Holy Tradition, so-called, is an alleged second source of divine revelation given by God because his revealed word in Scripture is inadequate for Christians after the Apostolic age. I have never heard this before....is this something the RCC itself states? If so, where?
EVEN IF there were any basis for this theory of a second and equal source of divine revelation....Which I absolutely do not believe...I believe only Christ is our revelation....He reveals all to all who seek him.
The rest does not make any difference to me.

 

[Wgw]

OK, so I skipped ahead cuz I couldn't catch up. Something occured to me. Gonna post a little info here so bear with me.

The Pharisees: In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were mostly middle-class businessmen, and therefore were in contact with the common man. The Pharisees were held in much higher esteem by the common man than the Sadducees. Though they were a minority in the Sanhedrin and held a minority number of positions as priests, they seemed to control the decision making of the Sanhedrin far more than the Sadducees did, again because they had the support of the people.

Religiously, they accepted the written Word as inspired by God. At the time of Christ's earthly ministry, this would have been what is now our Old Testament. But they also gave equal authority to oral tradition and attempted to defend this position by saying it went all the way back to Moses. Evolving over the centuries, these traditions added to God's Word, which is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2), and the Pharisees sought to strictly obey these traditions along with the Old Testament. The Gospels abound with examples of the Pharisees treating these traditions as equal to God's Word (Matthew 9:14; 15:1-9; 23:5; 23:16, 23, Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:42). However, they did remain true to God's Word in reference to certain other important doctrines. (from Wiki)

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch;[1] Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ mäts'hafä henok) is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC.[2]

It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. Most Christian denominations and traditions may accept the Books of Enoch as having some historical or theological interest or significance, but they generally regard the Books of Enoch as non-canonical or non-inspired.[3] It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian group.
(from gotquestions.org)
Jude quotes the Book of Enoch: Jude 1:14 And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Jude quotes from tradition, not a recognized book by Jews or most Christians. Since the early church was mostly converted Jews does it make sense that this "tradition" to use "Tradition" became incorporated in the early church and then RCC? Not saying it is correct or right, but maybe at least explains the how of it occuring? Probably been brought up before but new to me. Going a few steps further can an argument be made to 1) Consider that RCC Tradition has merit and/or 2) At least one of the books of Enoch may be scriptual? Granted, big leap based on 2 verses.......Opinions?

The Ethiopian Orthodx regard Enoch as canonical, like the Beta Israel. Since my own church is in communion with theirs it could be said that Oriental Orthodoxy as a whole does not disagree with this action, even if we do not regard it as dogmatic.

 

[Wgw]

No, tradition is not "Holy Tradition" and the latter was not a feature of the church of the first century.

Holy Tradition, so-called, is an alleged second source of divine revelation given by God because his revealed word in Scripture is inadequate for Christians after the Apostolic age. It is supposedly identified by these characteristics--continuously believed in the Church since the start and believed throughout the whole of the Church. EVEN IF there were any basis for this theory of a second and equal source of divine revelation, the fact remains that the ideas that have been made into dogmas by the Catholic churches don't conform to the requirements that are supposed to be met before any custom, tradition, legend, etc. can be true by "Holy Tradition."

That is a distortion and I think you well know it.