Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[ebedmelech]

I literally said in my response that Christ viewed scripture as an authority. He did not however, view it as the only authority.

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matthew 28:18

But I guess this cannot be true, because scripture is the only authority. The argument just doesn't work. Viewing scripture as the only authority goes against what Christ states Himself.

The only authority above scripture IS CHRIST

Check out John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14:
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

...you're falling on your own sword!

 

[ebedmelech]

Duplicate

 

[Chandler50]

The only authority above scripture IS CHRIST

Check out John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14:
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

...you're falling on your own sword!

Thank you! You are the first to admit that Christ is a higher authority than the scriptures. So 'sola scriptura' scripture alone cannot be true since Christ is a higher authority.

 

[Chandler50]

The only authority above scripture IS CHRIST

Check out John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14:
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

...you're falling on your own sword!

Additionally, every term for 'word' you quoted is the Greek word 'logos'. Which means a spoken word, or divine utterance. You still have yet to provide any verse referring the written scripture that claims it is the only authority. Every verse you have refered to is 'spoken word'. Read the Greek before you quote another please.

 

[ebedmelech]

Additionally, every term for 'word' you quoted is the Greek word 'logos'. Which means a spoken word, or divine utterance. You still have yet to provide any verse referring the written scripture that claims it is the only authority. Every verse you have refered to is 'spoken word'. Read the Greek before you quote another please.

No. You have yet to understand anything because you're too busy trying to be loyal to religious tradition than God. You're pretty much still falling on your own sword.

The Spoken Word always held to scripture as the authority...you don't and you do just as the Pharisees and hold your church tradition above God's written word.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17:
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Keep going in circles with what you think. The day will come when you'll understand.

 

[Chandler50]

No. You have yet to understand anything because you're too busy trying to be loyal to religious tradition than God. You're pretty much still falling on your own sword.

The Spoken Word always held to scripture as the authority...you don't and you do just as the Pharisees and hold your church tradition above God's written word.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17:
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Keep going in circles with what you think. The day will come when you'll understand.

First off, please do not say no to the fact the term for word in Greek is Logos. You can look it up anywhere online.

Second, my loyalty is to truth, which is what led me to the Catholic Church. I used to be SB, but after years of study and research I found the Catholic Church to be the only authority within Christianity. You are making it seem like I was born into Catholicsim. It is a cute tactic to try and discredit all of the evidence I have presented, but it will not work. The fact that you continue to present verses that do not refer to written scripture as the only authority is a testament to the lack of evidence there is in the Bible.

Third, you are now quoting verses that support Holy Tradition. I quoted 2 Peter 20-21 in my original post. This verse is a prime example of why sola scriptura fails. Because so many churches have tried to interpret on their own away from the Church established by Christ and have come up with thousands of various interpretations.

 

[Standing Up]

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:

The point is in your OP you said:

"Does this sound familiar? I follow Paul, I follow Cephas (Peter), what about I follow Luther, I follow Calvin, I follow Arminius, I follow Wesley. We are flawed and thus make the same mistakes over and over."

This is exactly like RC. Every one, including RC, says they follow Christ. This insult of yours simply falls flat; after all, they just followed RC's lead (I follow Peter).

"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?

Father or founder (semantics), it is the same concept you accuse Lutherans, Wesleyans, and others of.

Moving on, I have no problem with Peter having the keys. He preached first to Jew and Gentile. He exercised the keys; the door is open; never to be closed. Your mission, however, is to prove that hell prevailed, except where RC may have intervened.

 

[crixus]

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.

O ye of little faith.

 

[Goatee]

Third, you are now quoting verses that support Holy Tradition. I quoted 2 Peter 20-21 in my original post. This verse is a prime example of why sola scriptura fails. Because so many churches have tried to interpret on their own away from the Church established by Christ and have come up with thousands of various interpretations.

Agreed

 

[tulipbee]

Your words not mine. The Bible is important but living out the Words of Jesus is more important!!

The seven books isn't important.

 

[Chandler50]

This is exactly like RC. Every one, including RC, says they follow
Father or founder (semantics), it is the same concept you accuse Lutherans, Wesleyans, and others of.

So fact the Christ told Peter to establish His church on earth is just a side note? No one on earth, including Luther or anyone else can claim that Christ Himself establiahed the church and put them in charge other than Peter.

 

[tulipbee]

I clearly stated that they all do accept the 66 books, and that the question is a red-herring. This is because the issue is that adhering to even one less book then what is inspired would result in only holding only a partial authority (if sola scriptura is your thing).

If one less book was taken out or one more book was added then all of the 66 book falls apart making the numbers not add up. The numbers adding up to PERFECTION is what hold the 66 books together. It's more like if one letter was added or subtracted , it falls apart.

 

[tulipbee]

How did I 'blow it'. I stated that the 66 books you hold as authoritative was established by the Catholic church (with an additional seven that Martin Luther removed on his own authority, not God's) and if you do not view the Church as an authority, then you logically could not hold anything the Church does as authoritative, to include your current biblical canon. Your argument falls apart if the Catholic Church is not an authority.

The Protestant church is the Catholic church. The RCC is just another denomination that offsprung the church. It all started with a pope they're not sure if it is the original second Pope. Some chief turned it into a tradition against the bible and the RCC started. How many denomination calls themselves the true church?

 

[tulipbee]

So fact the Christ told Peter to establish His church on earth is just a side note? No one on earth, including Luther or anyone else can claim that Christ Himself establiahed the church and put them in charge other than Peter.

Christ put them all in charge so RCC wouldn't happen. The result was the Protestant church. It will all be the universal Catholic church together once the RCC get over it. There will be a movement later where the universal church will be recognized but the earth isn't ready yet.

 

[tulipbee]

That is not what I was asking. I said that "the issue is that adhering to even one less book then what is inspired would result in only holding only a partial authority".
This is referring to the Protestants 66 book canon; which removed seven inspired books. So the argument is that if you adhere to a 66 book canon, then you recognize only a partial authority. So the fact that most Christians recognize all 66 books is a red-herring. If you only adhere to 66 books when even one more is inspired then you only contain part of God's message. And when all Christians outside of Protestantism recognize more books as authoritative, that should raise some concern.

The bible wasn't completed till the 7 books removed. It was God that caused men to remove them. Then the bible became completed and all the numbers thoughout perfectly added up flawlessly. It's been scientifically proven

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Notice that in Mark 7 the Word of God is the written word.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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

You are thinking of 4 point Calvinism.

Three and Five point calvinism both insist on "perseverance of the saints" to get to heaven - perseverance in doing good works - in obedience to the Word of God.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Nothing in Christ's statement to the magisterium in Mark 7 claims "this is not from scripture but from the church".

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Apparently this post on Mark 7
Yesterday at 5:12 PM #194
was a choke point for the argument against sola scriptura. It demonstrates the very method that the argument against sola scriptura claims - should not exist.

 

[tulipbee]

You are thinking of 4 point Calvinism.

Three and Five point calvinism both insist on "perseverance of the saints" to get to heaven - perseverance in doing good works - in obedience to the Word of God.

The five points tells us that God keeps His promises to the already elected meaning they were not even born yet to do any works at all.