Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[BobRyan]

Good point; nobody appointed you adjudicator. You are not authorised to decide. ... If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

Your premise is flawed as Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-9 clearly show.

When an issue is presented cross-denominationally it is not some group of "Methodists" that can decide as a third party - rather it is scripture itself and the Holy Spirit. And as these examples show - SOME do cross over changing from one view to another on that basis. But this does not mean that ALL will.

In fact in the Protestant Reformation - not ALL Catholics left the Catholic church - and not ALL of them stayed -- and YET you had "the Pope" to adjudicate. So neither the Bible model nor the Catholic model results in "everyone agreeing to the same conclusion".

Yet your premise in your statement above - is that the Bible model is failing if not everyone agrees.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

 

[BobRyan]

What do you think? I imagine that the Methodists would decide against soul sleep and annihilationism. If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

No doubt Methodists would decide as you have stated - but the larger question is - who would agree to such a system? Do you really think the RCC would agree to let the "Methodists" decide in the discussion between the RCC and Southern Baptists over the subject of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition?

Do you think that "Standing Firm" or "Rick Otto", or I or the Pope would agree that any decision rendered by the Methodists on doctrinal disput in general between denominations like the RCC and the Southern Baptists - must be infallibly correct ?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

God in His Holy Word gave us everything we need for salvation in His Holy Word the Bible. That which is not necessary is open for interpretation. I think it was downright kind of God to so keep us occupied with trivia in the 2000 plus years till His return.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

God in His Holy Word gave us everything we need for salvation in His Holy Word the Bible. That which is not necessary is open for interpretation. I think it was downright kind of God to so keep us occupied with trivia in the 2000 plus years till His return.

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

Nobody wants to deal with the clear insufficiency demonstrated here.

 

[BobRyan]

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

Scripture alone - does decide - how do you think the SDA church grows by 400% from the 1980's to this day? non-SDAs look at the doctrines and evaluate them "sola scriptura". That is true of many Protestant and Evangelical groups.

But your premise is flawed. You claim the system does NOT work if the result is what we see in Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-9 where "not everyone" comes to the same conclusion in a cross-denominational discussion.

By that standard - the RCC model does not work either - because protesting Catholic scholars 'did not agree'

 

[MoreCoffee]

Scripture alone - does decide - how do you think the SDA church grows by 400% from the 1980's to this day?

Three cheers for your denomination

So how does SDA decision making trump Methodist decision making?

 

[BobRyan]

God in His Holy Word gave us everything we need for salvation in His Holy Word the Bible. That which is not necessary is open for interpretation. I think it was downright kind of God to so keep us occupied with trivia in the 2000 plus years till His return.

There are always differences of opinion. Certainly God will sort it all out when we get to heaven. But at the heart of the question asked is 'what is the evidence that a given solution works?'

MC argues that "if all do not come to the same conclusion" in these cross denominational discussions where sola scriptura is used - then the system is flawed no matter that it appeals to the Bible and to the Holy Spirit for unity.

However the RCC has no solution for cross denominational disputes between itself and any other denomination other than that the other group capitulate. And so far that model does not result in "everyone agreeing" for some obvious reasons.

So 'universal agreement' is not the 'criteria' for "what works".

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

Nobody wants to deal with the clear insufficiency demonstrated here.

How do you practise soulsleep and annihalationism?

 

[BobRyan]

Three cheers for your denomination

So how does SDA decision making trump Methodist decision making?

The point is that no one is going to accept the RCC, or the Methodists, or the SDAs as their independent 3rd part adjudicator.

The point is that the Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-9 model DOES work as a mechanism to see cross-denominational agreement 'by some' but there is non such thing as "cross denominational agreement by all" this side of the 2nd coming.

You are appealing to a 'test' that is in fact - no test at all and even the RCC could not manage to get such a result.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How do you practise soulsleep and annihalationism?

by dying?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The point is

There was no point in the post. Just a boast about 400% or something.

How many SDAs are there in the world?

 

[BobRyan]

How do you practise soulsleep and annihalationism?

Well recall that the "Sola Scriptura" model is that the Bible is the sole authority testing "all doctrine, tradition and practice". So the fact that you cannot "practice" a given doctrine does not mean it is not subject to the "Sola Scriptura" test.

 

[BobRyan]

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?

Scripture alone - does decide - how do you think the SDA church grows by 400% from the 1980's to this day? non-SDAs look at the doctrines and evaluate them "sola scriptura". That is true of many Protestant and Evangelical groups.

But your premise is flawed. You claim the system does NOT work if the result is what we see in Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-9 where "not everyone" comes to the same conclusion in a cross-denominational discussion.

By that standard - the RCC model does not work either - because protesting Catholic scholars 'did not agree'

Three cheers for your denomination

So how does SDA decision making trump Methodist decision making?

The point is that no one is going to accept the RCC, or the Methodists, or the SDAs as their independent 3rd part adjudicator.

The point is that the Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-9 model DOES work as a mechanism to see cross-denominational agreement 'by some' but there is no such thing as "cross denominational agreement by all" this side of the 2nd coming.

You are appealing to a 'test' that is in fact - no test at all and even the RCC could not manage to get such a result.

There was no point in the post.

You are engaged in a bit of wishful thinking

The point remains.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

by dying?

Well, the truth would be revealed at that point beyond question

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Well recall that the "Sola Scriptura" model is that the Bible is the sole authority testing "all doctrine, tradition and practice". So the fact that you cannot "practice" a given doctrine does not mean it is not subject to the "Sola Scriptura" test.

Maybe soulsleep and anialationism isn't a doctrine then?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, the truth would be revealed at that point beyond question

"smirk"

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe soulsleep and anialationism isn't a doctrine then?

It is a doctrine but it does not have "practice" -- unless you count not praying to the dead to be - "practice". Or having no communication with the dead as "practice".

The point is that doctrine is to be tested "sola scriptura" no matter that you can't practice doctrine.

The fall of man - the fact that Satan used the serpent in Eden to deceive mankind and that sinless man fell into sin - well we know we are in sin - but we cannot "practice" Satan deceiving Eve in the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It is a doctrine but it does not have "practice" -- unless you count not praying to the dead to be - "practice". Or having no communication with the dead as "practice".

The point is that doctrine is to be tested "sola scriptura" no matter that you can't practice doctrine.

The fall of man - the fact that Satan used the serpent in Eden to deceive mankind and that sinless man fell into sin - well we know we are in sin - but we cannot "practice" Satan deceiving Eve in the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

What scripture do you use as doctrine for either?