Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Albion]

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.

My apologies if that sounded adversarial or shrill. I was attempting just to be quick and as clear as possible because this has been explained many times already and there is an understandable reason why people think that the word "traditions" equals that theological approach to doctrine that is called "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition." It sounds the same, but of course "Holy Tradition" is just a term that theologians have adopted. It doesn't necessarily represent anything that the words make it seem. It isn't necessarily "Holy" just because someone calls their own approach to God's truth the "holy" approach...and as I was saying, it isn't based upon tradition, either.

I didn't think, by the way, that you were being a shill for anyone.

 

[Albion]

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

I've just given what I hope is a temperate and friendly reply to civilwarbuff that I hope will put him on the right track for understanding this theology. I'm not going to start exchanging no-information, smart alec retorts with someone else at the same time. Sorry.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

Understood sir.

When those topics come up on this board (as they sometimes do) - the defense for them is typically a reference to long standing church tradition... this or that ecumenical council... etc. (Recall that the RC infallibility doctrine is not just that Popes speak infallibly when they speak ex cathedra - it is also that the canon law of ecumenical councils are infallible as well)

So when I quote Mark 7
Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

It is not a case of me claiming "for the Jews" or for any denomination that I differ with - that it must be their "tradition". It is THEM claiming that some of the points where we differ is in an area that they themselves attribute to supposedly holy, supposedly infallible - tradition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

praying to the dead "communion with the dead" as they call it.

We do not pray to the dead.

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.

I think it's amazing how a "refuting sola scriptura, why the Bible alone is not sufficient" thread turned into a Cathoic bashing thread.
And still, nobody has shown why the Bible alone is sufficient, other than mangling Scripture to make it mean what you want.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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."

Actually, if you read Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus, you see Holy Tradition in action.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Catholics believe Christ is our revelation as well. We just know that He speaks to people now, today, and that this is just as much His Word as the Bible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've just given what I hope is a temperate and friendly reply to civilwarbuff that I hope will put him on the right track for understanding this theology. I'm not going to start exchanging no-information, smart alec retorts with someone else at the same time. Sorry.

Except that you mischaracterize what Sacred Tradition is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Understood sir.

When those topics come up on this board (as they sometimes do) - the defense for them is typically a reference to long standing church tradition... this or that ecumenical council... etc. (Recall that the RC infallibility doctrine is not just that Popes speak infallibly when they speak ex cathedra - it is also that the canon law of ecumenical councils are infallible as well)

Well, no, not really, in re 'long standing church tradition'. You need to understand the difference between Tradition and tradition.

So when I quote Mark 7
Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

It is not a case of me claiming "for the Jews" or for any denomination that I differ with - that it must be their "tradition". It is THEM claiming that some of the points where we differ is in an area that they themselves attribute to supposedly holy, supposedly infallible - tradition.

in Christ,

Bob

What I want to know is why you leave out the first 6 verses of Mark 7? Cuz they provide the context, don't you know?

 

[BobRyan]

Well, no, not really, in re 'long standing church tradition'. You need to understand the difference between Tradition and tradition.

There you have it folks!!

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

[/QUOTE]

What I want to know is why you leave out the first 6 verses of Mark 7? Cuz they provide the context, don't you know?

It negates nothing in that verbatim quote of Christ - as He demonstrates the process of sola scriptura for us all to read.

But - always open to someone with a fact - if you have some fact showing that the first 6 verses negates that verbatim quote of Christ's teaching in vs 6-13 - by all means "show your work" as they say in math class.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

It negates nothing in that verbatim quote of Christ - as He demonstrates the process of sola scriptura for us all to read.

But - always open to someone with a fact - if you have some fact showing that the first 6 verses negates that verbatim quote of Christ's teaching in vs 6-13 - by all means "show your work" as they say in math class.

in Christ,

Bob[/QUOTE]
I did that, already, though I never said it negates the quote. What it negates is your interpretation of it.

 

[Wgw]

There you have it folks!!

The Orthodox Church has always disringuished between Holy Tradition, of which the Scriptures are a component (and thus obtain theirnauthority from the Church rather than vice versa, which is inherently the correct Scriptural interpretation and impliction), and traditions, which encompass those aspects of ecclesiastical and secular life which are derived primarily from cultural values; these traditions are acceptable as long as they are not in opposition to sacred Tradition.

I would assume/hope that Roman Catholicism takes a similiar perspective.

 

[Wgw]

I've just given what I hope is a temperate and friendly reply to civilwarbuff that I hope will put him on the right track for understanding this theology. I'm not going to start exchanging no-information, smart alec retorts with someone else at the same time. Sorry.

Its not a smart alec retort to call you out when you distort tradition in such a manner as to be even contrary to the Anglican understanding of it.

 

[BobRyan]

The Orthodox Church has always disringuished between Holy Tradition, of which the Scriptures are a component (and thus obtain theirnauthority from the Church rather than vice versa,

Very much the way the Jews viewed their own tradition and scriptures in Mark 7.

I think that is the part that is not news.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The first 6 verses - negates nothing in that verbatim quote of Christ - as He demonstrates the process of sola scriptura for us all to read.

But - always open to someone with a fact - if you have some fact showing that the first 6 verses negates that verbatim quote of Christ's teaching in vs 6-13 - by all means "show your work" as they say in math class.

I did that, already, though I never said it negates the quote.

Well then you have done well not to quote yourself here - placing it along with that verbatim quote of Christ that I posted from Mark 7:6-13.

Perhaps some other time you will be inclined to make your case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Wgw]

You are resorting to eisegesis, distorting the meaning of the Gospel in order to prop up a vision of your own denomination which does nkt actually conform to reality. The SDA is one of the least Sola Scriptura denominations on the planet; your praxis and theology is shaped according to the traditions associated with those who believed the Second Coming would be in 1848, and after it did not come, the manipulative theology of Ellen White. The verses you repeatedly quote in an attempt to discredit the authentic Church of which the Apostles were members were in fact directed at the corruptions of the Pharisees specifically, and also at Christians like the Ebionites, or in modern times, Adventists and practitioners of so-called "Messianic Judaism" who adopt those Rabinnical customs.

The primary evidence that your position is erroneous is that our Lord promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, and since the Christian church was entirely governed by holy tradition, this requires you to fall back on "Great Apostasy" theology which is inherently unscriptural.

The really amusing thing from my perspective is given the intense reliance of your own denomination on extra-scriptural traditions you ought to be taking the opposite perspective.

 

[Standing Up]

And still, nobody has shown why the Bible alone is sufficient,

Sufficient for what? To decide what's for dinner? Or to know believe? John says, this is written so you might believe.

 

[Standing Up]

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...?

Traditions that various groups like RC, EO, or OO, hold vary and are contradictory to each other. Traditions are all found outside of and apart from the scripture record. For example, RC (Magisterium) believes it is the sole interpreter of scripture. EO and OO and P would disagree. This is what makes Tradition so tricky. No one agrees on what it is.

Besides, the Traditions extant in Paul's time aren't followed anyway (like a floating "easter"). So Tradition is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to bite.

 

[Wgw]

Sufficient for what? To decide what's for dinner? Or to know believe? John says, this is written so you might believe.

Yet St. John does not provide a table of contents for the New Testament or indeed the Old, so thus, even in binding the works of Scripture together we have to resort to Tradition in the form of the Athanasian Canon.

Also if we took your eisegesis of that verse to its logical conclusion, we might well deem to reject the non-Johannine scripture in its entirety. There is after all nothing to specify the scope of that statement; if I went to reductio ad absurdum I might propose you close the Bible after reading that one verse, since the Beloved Disciple said it was sufficient.

Also, fun fact, the idea that John wrote those words is another example of metadata that is entirely based on Tradition. Which is why some Protestant scholars like to talk of "John of Patmos" as a distinct person from "John the Evangelist" and "John the Beloved Disciple" since being seperated from Tradition they have no reason to trust the traditional attribution of the Johannkne corpus as a unified whole.

 

[Standing Up]

Yet St. John does not provide a table of contents for the New Testament or indeed the Old, so thus, even in binding the works of Scripture together we have to resort to Tradition in the form of the Athanasian Canon.

You mean OO Tradition with its grab-bag of books.

Anyway, to the point, John upholds the sufficiency of scripture. Or are you still looking for help deciding about dinner or what to wear Sunday?