Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Albion]

So what did people do who heard Christ speak and were saved, however were alive before the canon in the 300's? For that matter, what did any Christian do prior to the canon in the 300's. Were they all lost in how to live as a Christian because they did not have written scripture? The answer is that they had the spoken word, oral tradition given to them by the apostles. Here is a verse to support this sense that is the only authority you wish to recognize.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NRSVCE)

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

That verse does not have anything to do with "Sacred Tradition." It's about ordinary traditions. It doesn't say anything about doctrine, new doctrine, or what traditions are being referenced. The words aren't even the same.

What's more, it surely doesn't say that anyone should believe some doctrine because of folk legends that originated long after Christ or theological speculation that came long after Christ--yet that's what most of "Tradition" is based upon.

 

[Chandler50]

That verse does not have anything to do with "Sacred Tradition." It's about ordinary traditions. The words aren't even the same. What's more it sure doesn't say that anyone should believe some doctrine because of folklegends that originated long after Christ or theological speculation that came long after Christ, yet that's what most of "Tradition" is based upon.

Of course it is Holy Tradition. Why would the apostles tell them to 'stand firm' in human tradition. That does not make sense.

 

[Albion]

Sure, that is the way we know His word, but again, to say that scripture is the only authority means that at the time Christ spoke them, they were not authority. They only became authority once His words were transcribed, that is absurd.

And so is that theory.

 

[Albion]

Of course it is Holy Tradition.

No, it's not, and I explained several reasons why it cannot be.

Why would the apostles tell them to 'stand firm' in human tradition. That does not make sense.

I will accept that it doesn't make sense to you. However, there are many religious customs that the Apostles no doubt engaged in (just as we do). The verse calls on them to keep doing these. But there is no warrant for thinking that this refers to making up any new doctrines!

 

[Goatee]

So what did people do who heard Christ speak and were saved, however were alive before the canon in the 300's? For that matter, what did any Christian do prior to the canon in the 300's. Were they all lost in how to live as a Christian because they did not have written scripture? The answer is that they had the spoken word, oral tradition given to them by the apostles. Here is a verse to support this sense that is the only authority you wish to recognize.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NRSVCE)

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

I agree with this bit. Tradition is and has been passed down, by the Holy Spirit since the beginning of the church. Tradition goes hand in hand with the Bible. Obviously, we are so blessed to have the life of Our Lord in written form where as in ancient times people had to rely on 'mainly' word of mouth or preaching from the Apostles and Disciples. This 'Word of Mouth' was written down of which we have in the NT.

I believe that the Holy Spirit works in the Church, and us today. I am not sure that it would be correct to try and interpret scripture on ones own without spiritual guidance.

 

[crixus]

I am afraid I will need more then a cute acronym to be convinced. Besides, with that logical the Bible is useless for someone who passes away on the moon.

I'm glad I'm not you!

 

[Chandler50]

No, it's not, and I explained several reasons why it cannot be.


I will accept that it doesn't make sense to you. However, there are many religious customs that the Apostles no doubt engaged in (just as we do). The verse calls on them to keep doing these. But there is no warrant for thinking that this refers to making up any new doctrines!

It not about doctrine, it is about the method of which authority can be revealed. The apostles clearly used spoken word as an authority.

 

[Chandler50]

I'm glad I'm not you!

Why? I have not only the Holy scriptures, but a vast amount of Holy Tradition that enriches my walk with Christ. My heart, and my brain are fully satisfied.

 

[Chandler50]

I agree with this bit. Tradition is and has been passed down, by the Holy Spirit since the beginning of the church. Tradition goes hand in hand with the Bible. Obviously, we are so blessed to have the life of Our Lord in written form where as in ancient times people had to rely on 'mainly' word of mouth or preaching from the Apostles and Disciples. This 'Word of Mouth' was written down of which we have in the NT.

I believe that the Holy Spirit works in the Church, and us today. I am not sure that it would be correct to try and interpret scripture on ones own without spiritual guidance.

Absolutely, the the scriptures condemn attempting to interpret the word of God by yourself. This is another huge problem with any of Luther's assertions.

 

[BobRyan]

Really? Does the Bible mention the issue of abortion. Does the Bible mention in vitro fertilization. The answer is no. You can try to create an answer for these issues from random passages; but the fact of the matter is that those issue are not explicitly addressed. Do you think God would leave us high and dry, or would he leave a church on earth that would be able to address these issues?

Apparently - in your mind - turning to the Bible as the rule, the authority, the judge of all doctrine is to be opposed to the Church that it speaks about.

 

[BobRyan]

The tradition I speak of is church tradition or 'Holy Tradition'. This is not the same a traditions of man

Only because in one case it passes the test of scripture and in the later case it does not.

 

[pat34lee]

Why do you think it's been tampered with? Also, I agree with you that we don't need to know what's unimportant.

Jesus' ministry was not three and a half years, it was as Daniel prophesied. 62 weeks from his baptism to his resurrection, then eight more until Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit was sent to the apostles.
http://timmchyde.com/how-long-was-jesus-ministry/

John 6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

If you read just beginning at 6:1, Jesus and the disciples are taking a break from the crowds. Two problems. Passover is one of the feasts of God, not of the Jews. That term was added later by the church. Passover is also one of three feasts where it is mandatory for all Jewish men to be at the temple. Jesus and his disciples would have been breaking God's law if they did not go.

 

[Job8]

​

1. The Bible Never Claims to be the Sole Authority
Chandler, do we want to deal with truth or not? That is the first question. The second question is "Do Jesus and the apostles call Scripture 'The Word of God'"? The third question is "Does the Word of God signify that this is GOD'S TRUTH"? The Lord Jesus Christ said that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD" (Mt 4:4). Have you given this statement the consideration it deserves? Since every word of Scripture is a word from God, we have 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (which you quoted) to establish WITHOUT THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Scripture (the Bible) is the sole authority in all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice for the Christian. If you have any doubts study Psalm 119 very carefully. So your postulate #1 is FALSE.

​

2. The Bible Endorses Holy Tradition
No. The Bible does NOT endorse "Holy Tradition" (the traditions of men) but "the traditions of the apostles" (the revelations of Christ to the apostles). The Greek word paradosis has been translated as "tradition" in the NT. It means "that which was handed down". The Lord Jesus Christ taught His apostles -- OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES -- for forty days after His resurrection and before His ascension (Lk 24:25-27; 44-48; Acts 1:1-3). He also taught Paul directly through many revelations (Gal 1:11-17). These teachings were verbally handed down by the apostles, and then written down in the New Testament. Therefore THERE CANNOT BE ANY CONTRADICTION between "Holy Tradition" and Scripture. But when we examine "Holy Tradition" in the light of Scripture, we see a lot of the traditions of men incorporated into that supposedly authoritative tradition.

​

3. The Early Church Fathers Never Advocated for Sola Scriptura
If you read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, their sole authority is Scripture.
Later on, the ECF themselves introduced the traditions of men into "Holy Tradition". Here's how Polycarp compares himself (and others like him) and his words to the apostle Paul:

For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the
wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you
taught face to face with the men of that day the word which
concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent,
wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye
shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,​

The apostle Peter equated this "wisdom" of Paul with Divine inspiration (2 Pet 3:15,16)

4. Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit
Right. Only if you believe the propaganda of the "Traditionalist" churches. The truth is quite the opposite. Millions have been saved (and are being saved) through the preaching of the true Gospel QUITE APART FROM "HOLY TRADITIONS". On the other hand we have hundreds of pedophilic priests coming out of "Holy Tradition".

5. Sola Scriptura is Simply Not a Feasible Concept
Says who? If it was perfectly feasible for Christ and the apostles, why should it not be feasible for all Christians today? After all it is the living Word of God (1 Per 1:23-25):
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

What do we see here?
1. We are born again by the seed of the Word of God
2. It is an incorruptible seed
3. It is a living Word and an abiding Word
4. The Word of God is eternal -- endureth forever
5. The true Gospel is the Word of God.
Does this establish "feasibility" or not?

So instead of refuting Sola Scriptura, Christians should be embracing the Bible and Bible Truth -- not the traditions of men. The Reformers did not go far enough. They should have discarded everything that could not be supported by Scripture. They failed to do so.
​

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68567124, member: 235244"]No need to guess at Christs' view on sola-scriptura hammering of the church magisterium

Christ's doctrine on "sola scriptura testing" - resulted in hammering the traditions of the Jewish magisterium of His day and promoting the authority of the Word of God - yes even as found in the Ten Commandments.


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.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

The elders consisting of scribes and pharise es are in fact the "magisterium" even Paul admits to this. And Jesus shows how they claim to "sit in the chair of Moses" as church magisterium .


Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)[/QUOTE]

Did you even read my post of just skip to the conclusion? Because addressed Mark chapter seven in length under section two, 'The Bible Endorses Holy Tradition.'

Your response seems to claim agreement with my quote of Mark 7 -- I find your logic illusive just then.

Yet the prior response you refer to relies solely on the circular argument that "their tradition was unholy because it was unholy" as if to avoid the entire proof given by Christ - sola scriptura to reach the conclusion. That does not work.

In Mark 7 the only thing that makes the tradition of the magisterium in that chapter "unholy" is Christ's proof that it violates/contradicts scripture as he sola-scriptura-slams the Jewish magisterium of his day on that very point.

 

[BobRyan]

"You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.” Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God— then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.” - (Mark 7:8-13 - NRSVCE)

In this passage, Mark explicitly states that he is referring to human tradition. Whenever any tradition explicitly goes against the God's will, then it is human tradition and utterly sinful. Holy tradition is not the same as human tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains holy tradition as:

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." (DV 8 § 1) "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer." (DV 8 § 3.)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 78) Holy tradition does not trump scripture, they compliment each other in equal unity because they stem from the same source.

same claim the Jews make about their own holy tradition.

It still gets slammed "sola scriptura" in Mark 7 -- notice Jesus does not say "your tradition is wrong because it is not holy tradition" -- such circular arguments could never work to convince others. He uses objective "proof" - the sola scriptura proof - showing them just where they contradict scripture.

 

[Chandler50]

Apparently - in your mind - turning to the Bible as the rule, the authority, the judge of all doctrine is to be opposed to the Church that it speaks about.

Nope, that is not what I said or inferred. I said the Bible does not explictly speak of abortion. So if the Bible is your only authority then you could not know how to deal with abortion unless you attempt to infer an understanding from various passages (and we just saw how well that worked out in your interpretation of my post). However, if you subscribe in Holy Tradition and the authority of the Church that Christ Himself started, then you can have a definitive answer on the morality of issues not explictly taught in the Bible such as abortion.

 

[Chandler50]

same claim the Jews make about their own holy tradition.

It still gets slammed "sola scriptura" in Mark 7 -- notice Jesus does not say "your tradition is wrong because it is not holy tradition" -- such circular arguments could never work to convince others. He uses objective "proof" - the sola scriptura proof - showing them just where they contradict scripture.

Circular argument? Please tell me how 'The Bible is true because it says it is' is not a circular argument. You need an outside source to validate Holy scripture, which the Catholic Church did during the Council of Rome in 382 when they established the Biblical canon. they had the authority to do this because it is the Church started by Christ. No other church can claim it was directly started by Christ other than the Catholic Church. All other breakoffs were started by Martin Luther at the very earliest.

 

[BobRyan]

Nope, that is not what I said or inferred. I said the Bible does not explictly speak of abortion. So if the Bible is your only authority then you could not know how to deal with abortion unless you attempt to infer an understanding from various passages (and we just saw how well that worked out in your interpretation of my post). However, if you subscribe in Holy Tradition and the authority of the Church that Christ Himself started, then you can have a definitive answer on the morality of issues not explictly taught in the Bible such as abortion.

The Bible is THE rule of all doctrine and tradition -- everything is compared against it. If someone shoots another person with a laser and kills them, or runs them over with a motorcycle - the "do not murder" command is still violated - no matter that no lasers or motorcycles in Bible times. Babies are babies no matter how you kill them.

none of that is an argument against Mark 7 or Acts 17:11 practice of "Sola scriptura testing" of all tradition and doctrine.

 

[Albion]

It not about doctrine, it is about the method of which authority can be revealed.

Sola Scriptura is about doctrine.

 

[Chandler50]

1. The Bible Never Claims to be the Sole Authority
Chandler, do we want to deal with truth or not? That is the first question. The second question is "Do Jesus and the apostles call Scripture 'The Word of God'"? The third question is "Does the Word of God signify that this is GOD'S TRUTH"? The Lord Jesus Christ said that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD" (Mt 4:4). Have you given this statement the consideration it deserves? Since every word of Scripture is a word from God, we have 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (which you quoted) to establish WITHOUT THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Scripture (the Bible) is the sole authority in all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice for the Christian. If you have any doubts study Psalm 119 very carefully. So your postulate #1 is FALSE.

​

2. The Bible Endorses Holy Tradition
No. The Bible does NOT endorse "Holy Tradition" (the traditions of men) but "the traditions of the apostles" (the revelations of Christ to the apostles). The Greek word paradosis has been translated as "tradition" in the NT. It means "that which was handed down". The Lord Jesus Christ taught His apostles -- OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES -- for forty days after His resurrection and before His ascension (Lk 24:25-27; 44-48; Acts 1:1-3). He also taught Paul directly through many revelations (Gal 1:11-17). These teachings were verbally handed down by the apostles, and then written down in the New Testament. Therefore THERE CANNOT BE ANY CONTRADICTION between "Holy Tradition" and Scripture. But when we examine "Holy Tradition" in the light of Scripture, we see a lot of the traditions of men incorporated into that supposedly authoritative tradition.

​

3. The Early Church Fathers Never Advocated for Sola Scriptura
If you read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, their sole authority is Scripture.
Later on, the ECF themselves introduced the traditions of men into "Holy Tradition". Here's how Polycarp compares himself (and others like him) and his words to the apostle Paul:

For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the
wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you
taught face to face with the men of that day the word which
concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent,
wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye
shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,​

The apostle Peter equated this "wisdom" of Paul with Divine inspiration (2 Pet 3:15,16)

4. Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit
Right. Only if you believe the propaganda of the "Traditionalist" churches. The truth is quite the opposite. Millions have been saved (and are being saved) through the preaching of the true Gospel QUITE APART FROM "HOLY TRADITIONS". On the other hand we have hundreds of pedophilic priests coming out of "Holy Tradition".

5. Sola Scriptura is Simply Not a Feasible Concept
Says who? If it was perfectly feasible for Christ and the apostles, why should it not be feasible for all Christians today? After all it is the living Word of God (1 Per 1:23-25):
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

What do we see here?
1. We are born again by the seed of the Word of God
2. It is an incorruptible seed
3. It is a living Word and an abiding Word
4. The Word of God is eternal -- endureth forever
5. The true Gospel is the Word of God.
Does this establish "feasibility" or not?

So instead of refuting Sola Scriptura, Christians should be embracing the Bible and Bible Truth -- not the traditions of men. The Reformers did not go far enough. They should have discarded everything that could not be supported by Scripture. They failed to do so.
​

Every verse you quoted refered to God's spoken word, not written scripture. You can do a quick search on BibleHub to view the Greek before coming with a rebuttle.

To deny Holy Tradition is to deny what the apostles taught as truth. That you can find in scripture sense that is the only authority you recognize. I gave four examples in my post.