Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Albion]

Oral tradition is a different thing.

a different thing from what? I already agreed that it's different from Scripture and from Sacred Tradition, so what did you have in mind?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Did someone say he couldn't have? I think the point was that there is no indication that he did.

But it does look like you have put your finger right square on the divide between Catholics and other Christians. Is it sufficient for the creation of a dogma merely to say that God "could have" done anything?

And that's where Sacred Tradition comes in. Sacred Tradition says that He did. It doesn't contradict Scripture, therefore, ergo, we believe that he did.

 

[Root of Jesse]

a different thing from what? I already agreed that it's different from Scripture and from Sacred Tradition, so what did you have in mind?

Sacred Tradition. I don't think I was talking to you, originally. I was responding to someone else, when you entered the thread.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Again, is it sufficient that doctrine X doesn't CONTRADICT Scripture? There are all sorts of ideas that God did not deign to reveal to us in Scripture, so we are just at liberty to dogmatize on them?

If the Magisterium sees fit, they could. They haven't. That's why it helps to know what Sacred Tradition is. All our doctrine has Biblical precedent. The doctrine about the natures of Christ isn't explicit in Scripture, nor is the doctrine of the Trinity. They do come from various places in Scripture woven together to form coherent thought, though.

 

[Albion]

And that's where Sacred Tradition comes in. Sacred Tradition says that He did. It doesn't contradict Scripture, therefore, ergo, we believe that he did.

Right. More or less. You believe what is told you by the church falls within the scope of Sacred Tradition. To be entirely correct, we'd have to know that it really is what Sacred Tradition holds, whatever the doctrine in question might be and that there's some justification for thinking Sacred Tradition is, as is claimed, divinely inspired.

But we were talking about the usefulness or appropriateness of the term "oral tradition." It seemed that both of us thought it wasn't such a good idea to use that if the meaning is supposed to be Sacred Tradition instead.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Right. More or less. You believe what is told you by the church falls within the scope of Sacred Tradition. To be entirely correct, we'd have to know that it really is what Sacred Tradition holds, whatever the doctrine in question might be and that there's some justification for thinking Sacred Tradition is, as is claimed, divinely inspired.

But we were talking about the usefulness or appropriateness of the term "oral tradition." It seemed that both of us thought it wasn't such a good idea to use that if the meaning is supposed to be Sacred Tradition instead.

That's why I corrected it.

 

[Albion]

If the Magisterium sees fit, they could. They haven't. That's why it helps to know what Sacred Tradition is. All our doctrine has Biblical precedent. .

No, that's not true. I believe you yourself said that it simply has to not "contradict" Scripture, not that it has to have "Biblical precedent." And that's aside from the fact that "Biblical precedent" can mean almost anything the viewer or the church wants it to mean.

 

[Goatee]

Right. More or less. You believe what is told you by the church falls within the scope of Sacred Tradition. To be entirely correct, we'd have to know that it really is what Sacred Tradition holds, whatever the doctrine in question might be and that there's some justification for thinking Sacred Tradition is, as is claimed, divinely inspired.

But we were talking about the usefulness or appropriateness of the term "oral tradition." It seemed that both of us thought it wasn't such a good idea to use that if the meaning is supposed to be Sacred Tradition instead.

And, where did the Anglican church get its idea that women could be Priests then? Can you answer that? Was it Biblically based?

 

[patricius79]

Did someone say he couldn't have? I think the point was that there is no indication that he did.

I think that you are giving an oral tradition

But it does look like you have put your finger right square on the divide between Catholics and other Christians. Is it sufficient for the creation of a dogma merely to say that God "could have" done anything?

I think that's a straw man. We don't claim to base the dogma of the Immaculate Conception merely on the speculation that God could do this. But it is is true that He could, and did according to God's Word.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, that's not true. I believe you yourself said that it simply has to not "contradict" Scripture, not that it has to have "Biblical precedent." And that's aside from the fact that "Biblical precedent" can mean almost anything the viewer or the church wants it to mean.

Biblical precedent means that it already happened in Scripture. Elijah and Moses were both assumed into heaven, and our doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Eve was born sinless by God's grace, so our doctrine about Immaculate Mary has Biblical precedent.
All our doctrines do not contradict Scripture and have Biblical precedent. Ergo.

 

[Albion]

Biblical precedent means that it already happened in Scripture.

Of course that's what it ought to mean. However, we know that there are numerous cases of precedents that are not precedents at all. They're doctrines based upon the most strained and wildly imaginative comparisons of OT verses to medieval speculation and legends, etc. I have no doubt that you or I could invent some doctrine out of the blue and find a few phrases in Scripture that have nothing to do with it...and then proclaim the connection we say we found.

 

[patricius79]

Biblical precedent means that it already happened in Scripture. Elijah and Moses were both assumed into heaven, and our doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Eve was born sinless by God's grace, so our doctrine about Immaculate Mary has Biblical precedent.
All our doctrines do not contradict Scripture and have Biblical precedent. Ergo.

They don't contradict Scripture, have precedent, and are the Word of God.

 

[patricius79]

Of course that's what it ought to mean. However, we know that there are numerous cases of precedents that are not precedents at all. They're doctrines based upon the most strained and wildly imaginative comparisons of OT verses to medieval speculation and legends, etc.

Where does the Bible say that?

I think Catholics interpret the Bible mystically just like the authors of Scripture do. For example, Paul's allegorical reading about Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of course that's what it ought to mean. However, we know that there are numerous cases of precedents that are not precedents at all. They're doctrines based upon the most strained and wildly imaginative comparisons of OT verses to medieval speculation and legends, etc. I have no doubt that you or I could invent some doctrine out of the blue and find a few phrases in Scripture that have nothing to do with it...and then proclaim the connection we say we found.

That is what it means. Name one case of a precedent that's not a precedent, that is a doctrine based upon the most strained and wildly imaginative comparison of OT verses to medieval speculation and legends, etc. It is true that people can condone murder based on Scripture, just look at that West Wing episode. But that's not what the Church does.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So, True or False question...All your prayers come directly from the Bible?

False, all my prayers come from my heart.

She had a Savior, who saved her before she was born.

Show me one the biblical justification for this statement because I already have two that say she was not born without sin.

Romans 3:22-23 There is no difference, for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: "There is NO ONE righteous, NOT EVEN ONE; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. ALL have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is NO ONE who does good, not even one."

she gave birth to a person, who is God. Mother of God is appropriate.

More like a surrogate mother of God.

Intercessory prayer is Biblical.

Yes when you pray to God when you seek intercession. If you pray to anyone else (including Mary) it is "detestable to the lord" Deuteronomy 18:11
Nobody says she was divine, and she is not worshiped.

Who are you talking to when you pray the "Hail Mary"!

"God has entrusted the keys and treasures of heaven to Mary."
Thomas Aquinas

"Who can worthily thank you and adequately praise you, oh Blessed Virgin, who by your fiat has saved a lost world."
St. Augustine

"The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary."
Pope Pius IX

"Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone."
St. John Chrysostom

"No one ever finds Christ but with and through Mary. Whoever seeks Christ apart from Mary seeks Him in vain."
St. Bonaventure

"All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity."
Pope Benedict XV

"Holy Scripture was written to Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary."
St. Bernard

"What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan."
Pope Pius Xl

"Mary, not one of your devout servants has ever perished: may I, too, Be saved!"
Pope Benedict XV

Sounds a lot like worship to me.

so why could he not make Mary sinless?

The same reason why everyone else is not born sinless. If this was the case, why would God not make everyone born sinless and be done with it?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And, where did the Anglican church get its idea that women could be Priests then? Can you answer that? Was it Biblically based?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Eve was born sinless by God's grace, .

She was not BORN sinless by grace. She was CREATED sinless because it was before the fall. Christianity 101.[emoji19]

 

[patricius79]

False, all my prayers come from my heart.



Show me one the biblical justification for this statement because I already have two that say she was not born without sin.

Romans 3:22-23 There is no difference, for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: "There is NO ONE righteous, NOT EVEN ONE; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. ALL have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is NO ONE who does good, not even one."

Neither of those verses say that the New Eve was born in sin, or that she sinned. Neither do they imply that the New Adam sinned. The second quotation is a quotation from Psalm 114 which says that there is a "generation of the righteous". So clearly the passage is referring to the many wicked in the world. It's not denying that there are some righteous. Likewise babies haven't sinned. They are another exception.

Mark 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 are two other examples where "all" does not mean every person.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Neither of those verses say that the New Eve was born in sin, or that she sinned. Neither do they imply that the New Adam sinned. The second quotation is a quotation from Psalm 114 which says that there is a "generation of the righteous". So clearly the passage is referring to the many wicked in the world. It's not denying that there are some righteous. Likewise babies haven't sinned. They are another exception.

Mark 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 are two other examples where "all" does not mean every person.

Why did she offer the sin offering of 2 turtledoves?

 

[patricius79]

Yes when you pray to God when you seek intercession. If you pray to anyone else (including Mary) it is "detestable to the lord" Deuteronomy 18:11

That's not what the verse says.

Nobody says she was divine, and she is not worshiped.

Who are you talking to when you pray the "Hail Mary"!

"God has entrusted the keys and treasures of heaven to Mary."
Thomas Aquinas

"Who can worthily thank you and adequately praise you, oh Blessed Virgin, who by your fiat has saved a lost world."
St. Augustine

"The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary."
Pope Pius IX

"Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone."
St. John Chrysostom

"No one ever finds Christ but with and through Mary. Whoever seeks Christ apart from Mary seeks Him in vain."
St. Bonaventure

"All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity."
Pope Benedict XV

"Holy Scripture was written to Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary."
St. Bernard

"What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan."
Pope Pius Xl

"Mary, not one of your devout servants has ever perished: may I, too, Be saved!"
Pope Benedict XV

Sounds a lot like worship to me.

Beautiful. But the Bible doesn't say this is worship.