Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Chandler50]

Sola Scriptura is about doctrine.

Explain

 

[BobRyan]

Circular argument? Please tell me how

Christ proves that their tradition is not holy by the sola-scriptura test. That they had unholy tradition is the "result" of doing the test.

You start off saying "they are wrong not because the Bible shows it but because they had unholy tradition" - that is a circular argument - you use the conclusion that you need to derive - as the starting assumption. That is circular.

'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

1. At no point in Mark 7 does Christ tell that Jews that they need "to validate holy Scripture using an outside source".

2. The RCC validating its own tradition in its own council is not an example of using an outside source. Neither does the Bible argue that it is not valid until the RCC says so. I think we both agree on that.

3. Nobody in Paul's day was refusing to read the Bible until the RCC finally came along 300 years later.

4. At no point in Mark 7 does Christ argue that he is using scripture validated by the RCC or that the Jews did not know about Exodus 20 or that his scripture was validated and theirs was not.

 

[Albion]

Every verse you quoted refered to God's spoken word, not written scripture.

This is a pointless tack for you to take. We cannot access God's spoken word.

That's why he inspired men to write his word down.

 

[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.
​

Also, the amount of pedophiles the Catholic Church is the same as any other church. Many peer reviewed articles demonstrate this fact. Men are not free of sin.

 

[BobRyan]

This is a pointless tack for you to take. We cannot access God's spoken word.

That's why he inspired men to write his word down.

And in Mark 7 - Christ is quoting the written Word to hammer their spoken traditions.

 

[BobRyan]

Also, the amount of pedophiles the Catholic Church is the same as any other church. Many peer reviewed articles demonstrate this fact. Men are not free of sin.

Benedict did some sort of study to see how widespread the problem was - -- has that study been released so that a comparison between percentage single men priests - engaged in that activity in the RCC as compared to the married pastors in other churches?? IF so I have not heard of it.

 

[Tangible]

Through the lens of _______.
Let me give you an example: "Calvinism is the gospel."
A catholic can see that for what it is, but most of the Protestant church can't.

Through the lens of Holy Scripture. And not all that is covered under the label of Calvinism is Gospel, but that portion of Calvinism that proclaims the forgiveness of sins by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone apart from works certainly is the Gospel.

 

[Chandler50]

This is a pointless tack for you to take. We cannot access God's spoken word.

That's why he inspired men to write his word down.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

Remember the term for 'word' is Greek is 'spoken word'. The Bible states that God's spoken word is living and active. To claim that he does not speak to us still is heresy.

 

[Albion]

At this point in the "discussion," I feel that it's essential that Chandler show that something is an improvement over the Bible. Otherwise, the OP was a non-starter.

No arguing that Scripture is inadequate unless there is something else -- specifically indicated -- that God has shown us is an authority equal to his word in Scripture.

 

[Albion]

The Bible states that God's spoken word is living and active. To claim that he does not speak to us still is heresy.

Forget the denominational theologizing and try to prove your point. If God's SPOKEN word is active, how is it made available to us? I asked this quite a few posts ago and now I'm asking again.

 

[Chandler50]

Through the lens of Holy Scripture. And not all that is covered under the label of Calvinism is Gospel, but that portion of Calvinism that proclaims the forgiveness of sins by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone apart from works certainly is the Gospel.

No it is not.

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that?17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. - James 2:14-17

 

[Chandler50]

Forget the theologizing and try to prove your point. If God's SPOKEN word is active, how is it made available to us? I asked this quite a few posts ago and now I'm asking again.

I answered you multiple posts ago. Through the Church that Christ established on earth. Need I reference Matthew again where Christ gave the keys to the kingdoms of heaven to Peter alone?
Need I reference again the documented line of succession from Peter to now? Need I reference again the writings of all the Church fathers who recongnized the authority of the Catholic Church before the NT was even written?

 

[Tangible]

No it is not.

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that?17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. - James 2:14-17

Coram deo versus Coram hominibus distinction.

 

[Chandler50]

Coram deo versus Coram hominibus distinction.

James does not distinguish if this is in regards to us before God or before men. Besides, there are multiple others passages in Hebrews and elsewhere, so it is not localized to James.

 

[Albion]

I answered you multiple posts ago. Through the Church that Christ established on earth.

So you're heading around the circle again, answering the most critical question here with nothing more than "my church says."

It looks very much to me that you are not, in fact, able to show any reason why the Bible should be considered insufficient for establishing doctrine--unless, of course, we want to say "The Roman Catholic Church says so." All the other possibilities came to nothing so this is all you have left to fall back upon.

It was interesting for awhile, though, so thanks for that and for keeping it civil.

 

[Chandler50]

So you're heading around the circle again, answering the most critical question here with nothing more than "my church says."

It looks very much to me that you are not, in fact, able to show any reason why the Bible should be considered insufficient for establishing doctrine--unless, of course, we want to say "The Roman Catholic Church says so." All the other possibilities came to nothing so this is all you have left to fall back upon.

It was interesting for awhile, though, so thanks for that and for keeping it civil.

Not 'my' Church, 'the' Church. There is a big difference. No one else can claim that Christ Himself started their church. Why would Chirst deliver His revelation to any other Church then the one He established?

And I did give sufficient reason and evidence. Hundreds of documents from early church fathers(some of which were written around 80 AD), the scripture, and Christ's owns words. If that is not sufficient, then it is because you choose to only view scripture as authoritative. No one can change feelings with evidence.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Also I'm not making anyone out to be stupid. You seem to get offended quickly.

So ridiculously quickly that it was probably just me kidding around. In fact, I thought I was kidding around when I wrote it, but I could be wrong. My head thought it was just dry humor, but the fingers might have been flaming mad. I'll have to have a talk with them to make sure what ended up on the screen was really intended in jest.

 

[Standing Up]

The Catholic Church does not say we follow Peter. The position of the church is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent," especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things. - CCC 792

EO, P, RC, all teach that Christ is the Head of the Body. But RC follows Peter.

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth" (CIC, can. 331).

816 ... It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe
...
567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. "This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ" (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

What's your point again?

 

[Chandler50]

EO, P, RC, all teach that Christ is the Head of the Body. But RC follows Peter.

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth" (CIC, can. 331).

816 ... It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe
...
567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. "This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ" (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

What's your point again?

You asserted that we view St Peter as the head of the church. The answer is we do not, Christ is the head of the church; I gave you the reference for this.

In fact, it says right in para 936 that you quoted, that St Peter is the foundation, not the head. This is completely biblical:

Matthew 16:18-19
18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”

To no one else does Christ entrust the keys to kingdom of heaven but Peter. To no one else does he establish His church upon.

How do you justify this passage if you do not recognize that Peter is the father of the church?

 

[Poor Beggar]

So ridiculously quickly that it was probably just me kidding around. In fact, I thought I was kidding around when I wrote it, but I could be wrong. My head thought it was just dry humor, but the fingers might have been flaming mad. I'll have to have a talk with them to make sure what ended up on the screen was really intended in jest.

People think I'm angry all the time when I'm not so I understand that.