Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[thecolorsblend]

Guess you should read your bible. When a guy in my bible study group said if a person is catholic it means they have never read the bible I corrected him and told him he should not be trying to drag down God's kingdom. I hope I am not wrong.

Still waiting for chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture on how to deal with sex-offenders.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Still waiting for chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture on how to deal with sex-offenders.

There is a passage in Deuteronomy 22:13-29. It isn't really what one would want to see implemented today.

 

[Standing Up]

Sufficient to bear the burden that your definition of SS puts on it.

Funny.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Besides "interpretation", which isn't even part of the definition, where do you think it insufficient as the authority in all matters of doctrine and practice?

 

[Standing Up]

Supreme authority means just that. If there is a contradiction then the bible is the supreme authority.
.

Maybe if enough people continue to say the same thing with different words, it will sink in. But the real problem is they believe they will go to hell if they agree. That's the problem. They can't agree. They can't give up their straw men, tin men, or cowardly lions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Funny.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Besides "interpretation", which isn't even part of the definition, where do you think it insufficient as the authority in all matters of doctrine and practice?

Next time you argue with BobRyan about hell and soul sleep and similar things tell me that the bible is sufficient to prove your case

 

[Standing Up]

Next time you argue with BobRyan about hell and soul sleep and similar things tell me that the bible is sufficient to prove your case

You're still confused about SS and your strawman called "interpretation".

 

[MoreCoffee]

You're still confused about SS and your strawman called "interpretation".

It isn't interpretation that is at stake it is adjudication.

 

[BobRyan]

Still waiting for chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture on how to deal with sex-offenders.

Are you looking for NT persecuted church model of Romans 1 and 1Corinthians 6 for that subject -- or are you looking to go back to the days of the kingdom of Israel under a Theocracy?

 

[BobRyan]

It isn't interpretation that is at stake it is adjudication.

Who was adjudicating in the case of Acts 17:11 where non-Christians were testing the teaching of Paul - or in Mark 7:6-13 where Christ opposed the leading scholars of his day on the subject of their traditions and doctrine?

Surely we can agree that it was the "Holy Spirit" in direct form.

This is not to say that within the same group there is no Church leadership to serve God in praying for the direction of the Holy Spirit - as differences arise within the group.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are three categories that everything falls in.
Biblical = Is in the bible and the bible supports it
Unbiblical = Is in the bible and the bible is against it
Extra-biblical = Is not in the bible and the bible is neither for it or against it.

You statement here though goes directly against what you have been arguing. You need to make up your mind as to which is correct rather than holding to a position that contains double standards. Your choice.

We believe you're missing one. Is not explicitly in the Bible, but is supported by the Bible. Some Traditions are that. Such as the belief that Joseph was an older man when he wed Mary, who was under age, and a consecrated virgin. Such as Mary being ever-virgin, having never conceived other children than Jesus. Such as the doctrines of the Trinity, and the contents of the Bible...

 

[Root of Jesse]

So then ... Mark 7:6-13 comes to mind.

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 doesn't say that...

 

[Fireinfolding]

You're still confused about SS and your strawman called "interpretation".

Even in the scriptures themselves speaks of the making known his words to you.

For example, if we are looking at scripture it says,

All scripture is profitable for reproof (2 Ti 3:16)

In Proverbs it speaks of turning at my reproof which is equated with his words

Prov 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: (( behold )) , I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you

Whereas the interpretation here (or that which can be made known) comes through him in the others response to his words (or his reproof)

 

[thecolorsblend]

Are you looking for NT persecuted church model of Romans 1 and 1Corinthians 6 for that subject -- or are you looking to go back to the days of the kingdom of Israel under a Theocracy?

A straight answer would be a fine starting point.

 

[BobRyan]

So then ... Mark 7:6-13 comes to mind.

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 doesn't say that...

I think you sincerely believe that.

So when I posted this --

So then ... Mark 7:6-13 comes to mind.

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.

I was prepared for the fact that some might not accept it.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Are you looking for NT persecuted church model of Romans 1 and 1Corinthians 6 for that subject -- or are you looking to go back to the days of the kingdom of Israel under a Theocracy?

A straight answer would be a fine starting point.

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of your question.

 

[BobRyan]

We believe you're missing one. Is not explicitly in the Bible, but is supported by the Bible. Some Traditions are that. Such as the belief that Joseph was an older man when he wed Mary, who was under age, and a consecrated virgin.

Is that a doctrine that you hold? How do you teach that doctrine to others?

Is that because Joseph is not there when Christ gives Mary to John as her provider at the cross?

Such as Mary being ever-virgin, having never conceived other children than Jesus.

Who knew what Joseph and Mary were doing all the rest of their lives until Joseph died?

Do you get the idea that Mary had no other children of her own because at the cross - Jesus gave Mary to the Apostle John?

Such as the doctrines of the Trinity

You don't rely on the Bible to teach the doctrine of the triune Godhead? "one God in three persons"?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of your question.

Still waiting.

 

[BobRyan]

non-clarifications -- to vague questions - get a lot of 'waiting' time applied.

 

[thecolorsblend]

non-clarifications -- to vague questions - get a lot of 'waiting' time applied.

I'm not the one who introduced the subject of pedophiles or the proposition that there is a "biblical" way of dealing with them. When chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture was requested, the question was dodged, the subject was changed, the point was obfuscated and basically everything possible has been done to not provide chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture as to how one ought to deal with pedophiles.

Still waiting for that, actually.

 

[Rick Otto]

Still waiting for chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture on how to deal with sex-offenders.

Doesn't Paul tell us to obey the law?
Doesn't that mean 'get the law involved'?
I can't find a scripture that says to cover it up and give them a fresh opportunity to offend, can you?