Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[BobRyan]

antletems said: ↑
So, what about all the miracles and teachings of Jesus that were not recorded? I believe they were handed down verbally through the ages. Via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit that is alive today in the Catholic church!

Hearsay.

John 21:25Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

in that example you "prove" that the Bible is not an exhaustive account of every word spoken during the 3.5 years of ministry of Christ's life.

A point that all would have agreed to - from the start.

Too few pages in the gospel accounts to be such an exhaustive 3.5 year record.

But that does not mean that the we would believe any ol string of stories that this or that church might "make up" - as I am sure you also would agree. look at all the RC forgeries exposed over the years - what about that list of forged documents might "inspire" a non-Catholic to simply believe any ol story that comes along from the RC press?

Surely you would also admit that this is somewhat of a hurdle for the Catholic church to overcome in sharing its version of history.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In fact as we saw in this post - at least a full 1/3 of those raised as Catholics struggle to keep believing those stories - how much more would non-Catholics be disinclined toward them??

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.

=====================================
"Orthodox Christians have one of the lowest rates of retention across Christian and non-Christian denominations. Only 53% of adults who were raised in the Orthodox Church still identify themselves as Orthodox Christians. Compare that to Hindus (80%), Jewish (75%), Mormon (64%) and Catholic (59%)."
http://ocl.org/pew-study-reveals-critical-decline-in-orthodox-religious-membership/

"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

======================================

And both groups argue consistently on this thread - against "sola scriptura" testing of their tradition and doctrine.

 

[TheDag]

4. Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit
​

From a purely logical standpoint, anything that consistently yields negative results is bad. This concept is not just logical, but an explicit teaching of Jesus, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:18 NRSVCE) Therefore, if the concept of sola scriptura is 'good' then it should yield 'good' results; however, this is not the situation. Sola scriptura has led to tens of thousands of divisions within the church which is emphatically against scripture. Paul writes:

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
- 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (ESV)

Does this sound familiar? I follow Paul, I follow Cephas (Peter), what about I follow Luther, I follow Calvin, I follow Arminius, I follow Wesley. We are flawed and thus make the same mistakes over and over. We must heed the words of Paul by removing divisions in Christ's church and "...be united in the same mind and the same judgement." (1 Corinthians 1:10 ESV) I cannot fathom how the concept of sola scriptura, whose fruits has consistently defied scripture, could be the intention of God.

This is so full of holes it is laughable. By the OP's very words then the catholic church and following scripture and tradition is wrong as it produces bad fruit as evidenced by the divisions in the roman catholic church. See the disunity spoken about in the passage quoted is clearly within the same congregation. It is not differences between different denominations.

I have attended the lutheran church yet never followed Luther so your argument is invalid anyway. I can honestly say I never heard anyone say I follow Luther or Calvin. Just like people would quote the early church fathers people do quote them of course. If that makes division then quoting early church fathers likewise is also creating division.

I have posted blind and have not responded to errors in a number of other parts of the post.

It also relies on the idea that simply having a different name makes you non-believers.

 

[Rick Otto]

This is so full of holes it is laughable. By the OP's very words then the catholic church and following scripture and tradition is wrong as it produces bad fruit as evidenced by the divisions in the roman catholic church. See the disunity spoken about in the passage quoted is clearly within the same congregation. It is not differences between different denominations.

I have attended the lutheran church yet never followed Luther so your argument is invalid anyway. I can honestly say I never heard anyone say I follow Luther or Calvin. Just like people would quote the early church fathers people do quote them of course. If that makes division then quoting early church fathers likewise is also creating division.

I have posted blind and have not responded to errors in a number of other parts of the post.

It also relies on the idea that simply having a different name makes you non-believers.

Blind is fine as the objections to ss require selective blindness.


.
God Himself wrote in stone.
It's a clue.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

There is no contradiction between Sacred Tradition and Scripture, so my statements do not contradict AT ALL. Sacred Tradition provides context to Sacred Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, old heresy is better than recent heresy?

Heresy is heresy. But LDS cannot provide anything more than 300 years old.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But has done so many times.

In your opinion, which has been shown many times to be wrong.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Where did I say Scripture only? I said Scripture proves our doctrines, and Tradition proves our doctrines. Scripture, rightly interpreted, which is where I believe, and my Church believes, you're wrong.

 

[Albion]

There is no contradiction between Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

That would be true ONLY if we consider a belief that has no support in Scripture to be "not" in contradiction to Scripture.

Most people would say that a doctrine is not justified merely because the Bible doesn't directly condemn it. I don't think, for instance, that the Bible says, flat out, that there is no life on Mars, but if any church made it a doctrine binding on the members that there IS, I'd call that contrary to Scripture.

By your reasoning, most of the Book of Mormon, for example, would be allowed as not being a contradiction to Scripture since most of it has nothing to do with the Bible at all.

 

[Albion]

In your opinion, which has been shown many times to be wrong.

In your opinion, that is. And you say this whenever I don't agree with you, whether or not I actually am wrong.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That would be true ONLY if we consider a belief that has no support in Scripture to be "not" in contradiction to Scripture.

But all our doctrines have precedents in Scripture. Not only do they not contradict, they are supported.

Most people would say that a doctrine is not justified merely because the Bible doesn't directly condemn it. I don't think, for instance, that the Bible says, flat out, that there is no life on Mars, but if any church made it a doctrine binding on the members that there IS, I'd call that contrary to Scripture.

Science is not contrary to Scripture. It's different, so your analogy doesn't hold.

By your reasoning, most of the Book of Mormon, for example, would be allowed as not being a contradiction to Scripture since most of it has nothing to do with the Bible at all.

No, by my reasoning, most of the Book of Mormon would not be allowed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In your opinion, that is. And you say this whenever I don't agree with you, whether or not I actually am wrong.

No, in the Church's mind. I don't offer many opinions here. You're wrong a lot, regarding the Catholic Church. I could care less whether you agree with me.

 

[Albion]

But all our doctrines have precedents in Scripture.

"Precedents" in Scripture? It's not a "precedent" to claim that a doctrine is permitted so long as the Bible doesn't explicitly denounce it.

 

[Albion]

No, in the Church's mind. I don't offer many opinions here. You're wrong a lot, regarding the Catholic Church. I could care less whether you agree with me.

I was a Catholic a lot longer than you have been one, and I taught religion for the church, so this routine of you telling me in every exchange that I don't know anything about the Catholic Church but, at the same time, every recent convert is supposed to be a theologian just because he's gone through inquirer's classes and owns a copy of the Catechism doesn't impress me much. Sorry.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Precedents" in Scripture? It's not a "precedent" to claim that a doctrine is permitted so long as the Bible doesn't explicitly denounce it.

I didn't say it was.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I was a Catholic a lot longer than you have been one, and I taught religion for the church, so this routine of you telling me in every exchange that I don't know anything about the Catholic Church but, at the same time, every recent convert is supposed to be a theologian just because he's gone through inquirer's classes and owns a copy of the Catechism doesn't impress me much. Sorry.

So what? That means little to nothing. I know lots of "Catholic" religion teachers who do so improperly. Many given the thumbs up by dioceses. Plus I never claimed to be a theologian. You don't impress me much, with your 'knowledge' of Catholicism. You're obviously very rusty. You may be more knowledgeable than the average Catholic, but that's not saying a whole lot. Sorry, back at you.

 

[BobRyan]

Where did I say Scripture only? I said Scripture proves our doctrines, and Tradition proves our doctrines. Scripture, rightly interpreted,

Then you would be posting in favor of sola scriptura - instead of constantly trying to set it aside.

Actions speak pretty loud in that regard.

When I asked you "so then does this mean we will start seeing RC posters - posting in favor of sola scriptura testing from now on?"

you said "no"

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then you would be posting in favor of sola scriptura - instead of constantly trying to set it aside.

Actions speak pretty loud in that regard.

When I asked you "so then does this mean we will start seeing RC posters - posting in favor of sola scriptura testing from now on?"

you said "no"

Right, because then you're going to insist that your interpretation of the Scripture is correct. Scripture is correct, but Scripture comes from Tradition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Heresy is heresy. But LDS cannot provide anything more than 300 years old.

I am in agreement with you on the Mormon heresy, but your statement regarding its relatively recent development in relation to older heresies indicates that older heresies are somehow better than newer heresies. Is the older heresy of following the "inspired" writings of Louis Montfort better than following the newer "inspired" writings of Joseph Smith better?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then you would be posting in favor of sola scriptura - instead of constantly trying to set it aside.

Actions speak pretty loud in that regard.

When I asked you "so then does this mean we will start seeing RC posters - posting in favor of sola scriptura testing from now on?"

you said "no"

I do not set Scripture aside, at all. Nor does the Catholic Church. We understand, though, from where Scripture proceeded. Sacred Tradition.