Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Wgw]

Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that any Christian would embrace other writings as being of the same level of significance as the Bible.

Indeed, and I would criticize them if they did. However, I do believe that we must be clear about Who and What the Word is.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed, and I would criticize them if they did. However, I do believe that we must be clear about Who and What the Word is.

Quite true. It would be difficult in the extreme to conflate Jesus Christ with the Bible.

 

[tulipbee]

Why would you limit God's word to what's printed in the Bible?

It's the only source of truths to test the untruths. Why would I want to use unbiblical traditions to test unbiblical traditions?

 

[Standing Up]

Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that any Christian would embrace other writings as being of the same level of significance as the Bible.

OO/EO and RC embrace other writings as equal to the bible. They can't even agree to what the bible is. P uses scripture alone to determine things salvific (as you know).

 

[Root of Jesse]

A good question, indeed. It seems that the Christian Church has made that determination for us, has it not? When the canon of scripture was stipulated (which is another discussion entirely) it excluded all but the Bible as being the Word of God. However, there always have been those who have chosen to incorporate other writings such as the Book of Mormon, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the Gospel of Thomas, etc., etc., etc. with the Bible as being the Word of God. I doubt you are in that category, but I could be mistaken.

Actually, what the Christian Church did was decide what could be used in worship liturgy. That's what constitutes the Bible. There are other things which are part of Sacred Tradition, which are also inspired, God's Word. The Church also determines that. Sacred Tradition never contradicts Sacred Scripture, and vice versa.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that any Christian would embrace other writings as being of the same level of significance as the Bible.

We actually do place other writings, which were actually speakings set to paper, on par with the Bible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's the only source of truths to test the untruths. Why would I want to use unbiblical traditions to test unbiblical traditions?

No, it's not. Sacred Tradition, which provides context for the Bible, is also a source of Truth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, it's not. Sacred Tradition, which provides context for the Bible, is also a source of Truth.

Given that fact that there is absolutely no consensus regarding the content of Sacred Tradition among Christians (unless you limit the definition of Christian to members of your particular denomination) it is absurd to contend that ST is also a source of Truth. There is a much stronger argument that modern science is also a source of Truth than there is for ST.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Given that fact that there is absolutely no consensus regarding the content of Sacred Tradition among Christians (unless you limit the definition of Christian to members of your particular denomination) it is absurd to contend that ST is also a source of Truth. There is a much stronger argument that modern science is also a source of Truth than there is for ST.

I don't belong to a denomination. Denominations are anti-Biblical. Maybe you can believe such an argument for modern science, but when you look at the disparity regarding Evolution and Climate Change, you have to take modern science with a grain of salt. We know what Sacred Tradition is, the Magisterium has the authority to declare what it is. And there is totally a consensus-read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Given that fact that there is absolutely no consensus regarding the content of Sacred Tradition among Christians (unless you limit the definition of Christian to members of your particular denomination) it is absurd to contend that ST is also a source of Truth. There is a much stronger argument that modern science is also a source of Truth than there is for ST.

I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.

toucha lol

 

[bbbbbbb]

I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.

Interesting. Apparently you and RootofJesse are at odds with each other on this issue. However, I think each of you is viewing this issue from differing aspects. On one hand, RoJ asserts that, of course, there is no disagreement with ST because it only really exists in your Church and in your Church alone. You, on the other hand, at least recognize the existence of churches outside of your own, although you readily dismiss them as lacking consistent ST. In both cases, you agree that ST is contained in your denomination and your denomination alone.

Modern science, being a relatively closed system, is not unlike your ST. It is internally consistent and, therefore, its proponents can sincerely make the claim that it reflects the Truth faithfully. Your ST, by contrast, contains a number of internal flaws and discrepancies, such as the myriad Papal Bulls which have been retired to the dustbins of the Vatican. Even on such an essential doctrine as Purgatory, your magisterium has not proven to be definitive.

 

[Wgw]

OO/EO and RC embrace other writings as equal to the bible. They can't even agree to what the bible is. P uses scripture alone to determine things salvific (as you know).

This is simply untrue. The Bible is regarded as the most important part of holy tradition; the slight differences in canon which primarily concern the OT have not proven controversial in thenprocess of ecumenical reconciliation. Indeed, each of the four OO churches has a slightly different list of books in its traditional language Bible (signifigantly more deuterocanonical books in the Ethiopian bible), but this does not himder our Eucharistic communiom.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.

Neither do Catholics. But the Protestants agree on what the Bible is and they agree that Christ was using the "sola scriptura" test of tradition and doctrine - in Mark 7:6-13 to hammer the church traditions of Jewish Magesterium.

 

[tulipbee]

No, it's not. Sacred Tradition, which provides context for the Bible, is also a source of Truth.

Westminster confessions are great sources and contains quote proofs. Did we tie?

 

[tulipbee]

What are the differences between a Protestant tradition and a RCC tradition when they both are backed up with quote proofs.

 

[Albion]

What are the differences between a Protestant tradition and a RCC tradition when they both are backed up with quote proofs.

The Catholic idea of "Tradition" does not require there to be any Biblical support, let along proof. The presumed authority of the church itself to define doctrine, along with an absence of Biblical opposition to whatever the doctrine might be is considered to be sufficient.

 

[Albion]

I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture

I beg your pardon! Protestants of every denomination agree on the 66 books that constitute the Bible.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Neither do Catholics.

Sure we do and sure we can. We Catholics all use the same canon. The Church has provided interpretations for several passages. Not all of them. Not even most of them. But several. We must agree with the Church on the interpretation of those passages; but for everything else we're welcome to read sacred scripture and reach our own insights and interpretations. We're unified where we need to be and we have liberty on everything else.

But the Protestants agree on what the Bible is

Not so. It's not challenging to find Protestant bodies who barely regard sacred scripture at all. Protestants are hardly unified on this.

and they agree that Christ was using the "sola scriptura" test of tradition and doctrine - in Mark 7:6-13 to hammer the church traditions of Jewish Magesterium.

Putting aside the accuracy of that interpretation, logically they would have to take that view. Protestants have no historical basis for most of their beliefs so their only way to justify many things they believe in is to eschew sacred tradition entirely and "just do what the Bible says"... an approach which has not fostered unity but rather has resulted in tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations, who can't even agree with each other about how to make Kool-Aid, much less what sacred scripture teaches.

 

[Albion]

Sure we do and sure we can. We Catholics all use the same canon.

No, that's actually not true. Some national churches include books that others do not have.

Not so. It's not challenging to find Protestant bodies who barely regard sacred scripture at all.

Don't keep us in suspense. Which churches "barely regard sacred scripture at all?" And BTW, "barely regard" it as what?