Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

If not, then divisions are bad. And sola scriptura has led to about 800 million Protestants who are all divided on Christ's teachings. Which is bad

As you claim and with no scripture to back your claim why are you asking me for one.

You only need one verse if there are no countering verses that must be taken as a whole, such as the one verse from Mark 7. Yes it is saying human tradition is bad, but there are four other verses that say tradition is good, so they all must right sense God does not make errors.

There is no scripture that staes the Bible divided anything and you want me to provide what to discredit what has not been credited?

 

[Chandler50]

As you claim and with no scripture to back your claim why are you asking me for one.

There is no scripture that staes the Bible divided anything and you want me to provide what to discredit what has not been credited?

I did not think I had to cite the verse, because I thought that you read my OP.

Oh well... Here is the verse.

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment

And it's not about the Bible divided. I do not know how you gleaned that. It is about the church not being divided. So since sola scriptura has resulted in thousands of denomination. It has resulted in division. Which is condemned.

 

[SAAN]

Is Jesus, on judgement day, going to say, "I showed you the way but you took another route!" "You chose to go on your own! You chose a different path!"

You see, NT shows us the way! Jesus told us who was to lead 'His' church and how it would be unbeatable but so many have thrown that to one side and decide to go it alone!!

The NT is based right off the OT, as all the command in the NT are carried right from the OT, so we need to look at the bible a 1 complete book. Christ gave an example and it was to keep his fathers commandments and that is the path we are to choose.

 

[tulipbee]

With God and Christ time means absolutely nothing. Of course Jesus knew who would believe ahead of time. But He did not make it impossible for some to believe either. It was their choice to disbelieve and disobey the Gospel.

Nope. The elects didn't chose be elected, God did. Only the unregenerated disobeyed cause they didn't believe cause God didn't choose them but men didn't have that ability to understand spiritual things of God in the first place. They didn't care either.

 

[Chandler50]

Nope. The elects didn't chose be elected, God did. Only the unregenerated disobeyed cause they didn't believe cause God didn't choose them but men didn't have that ability to understand spiritual things of God in the first place. They didn't care either.

If you believe this, then they does Christ calls us to evangelize and spread the good news? Why does it matter if everyone who is saved is already saved? What is the point?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I did not think I had to cite the verse, because I thought that you read my OP.

I read what I responded to and that is what we are discussing.

Oh well... Here is the verse.

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment

And it's not about the Bible divided. I do not know how you gleaned that. It is about the church not being divided. So since sola scriptura has resulted in thousands of denomination. It has resulted in division. Which is condemned.

From the myrads of times you stated it. You are a real work of art, aren't you. First you state it then you ask where I got it from. You know, people don't just read the begining and ending of threads. Many read what others have posted and see what I'm talking about.

I don't even know why i continue with this seeing how you try to evade more than interact.

 

[tulipbee]

If you believe this, then they does Christ calls us to evangelize and spread the good news? Why does it matter if everyone who is saved is already saved? What is the point?

God instructed us to proclaim the gospel but we don't make God bow down to answer questions like that. We're told to do so. Just do it, anyway

 

[Chandler50]

I read what I responded to and that is what we are discussing.

Oh well... Here is the verse.

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment



From the myrads of times you stated it. You are a real work of art, aren't you. First you state it then you ask where I got it from. You know, people don't just read the begining and ending of threads. Many read what others have posted and see what I'm talking about.

I don't even know why i continue with this seeing how you try to evade more than interact.

Lol, show me one time where I stated that 1 Corinthians 1:10 refers to the Bible being divided. Show me, please.

 

[Chandler50]

God instructed us to proclaim the gospel but we don't make God bow down to answer questions like that. We're told to do so. Just do it, anyway

You are only utilizing verses that speak of predestination without using the verses that counteract them. If there are both, then it is obviously not one or the other, but a mix. Like some people are elect, and the rest of us (most of us) are not.

 

[Albion]

Not everyone will be saved is absolutely true.
Not everyone will be saved because God wanted them to be lost is false.

Well, I don't think anyone believes that God wanted them to be lost, so that might as well not be said.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Lol, show me one time where I stated that 1 Corinthians 1:10 refers to the Bible being divided. Show me, please.

Where did I state that that is where you posted it? This is the dishonesty that I've been refering to since I started calling you out on your deceptiveness. This is a prime example of what people point to when they demonize Christian's. Evasive dodging and continued deversions in order for you to fell victorious by frustrationing everyone into walking away.

I hope I'm beside you when we reach heaven just to see how you try to explain your actions here. I won't be happy or sad about it, but the Lord did say vengence is mine, and I will see what he has to say about you.
I will let this lay and go find anyother thread to post at.

 

[Chandler50]

Where did I state that that is where you posted it? This is the dishonesty that I've been refering to since I started calling you out on your deceptiveness. This is a prime example of what people point to when they demonize Christian's. Evasive dodging and continued deversions in order for you to fell victorious by frustrationing everyone into walking away.

I hope I'm beside you when we reach heaven just to see how you try to explain your actions here. I won't be happy or sad about it, but the Lord did say vengence is mine, and I will see what he has to say about you.
I will let this lay and go find anyother thread to post at.

You make a false claim. I call you out to show me, and you cannot produce the evidence. So you call me names and leave. That is fine. It is not your fault, temper tantrums are just another thing you inherited from following Luther rather then Christ.

 

[Chandler50]

Where did I state that that is where you posted it? This is the dishonesty that I've been refering to since I started calling you out on your deceptiveness. This is a prime example of what people point to when they demonize Christian's. Evasive dodging and continued deversions in order for you to fell victorious by frustrationing everyone into walking away.

I hope I'm beside you when we reach heaven just to see how you try to explain your actions here. I won't be happy or sad about it, but the Lord did say vengence is mine, and I will see what he has to say about you.
I will let this lay and go find anyother thread to post at.

I could say the same for Luther, and every pastor who has followed.

 

[tulipbee]

You are only utilizing verses that speak of predestination without using the verses that counteract them. If there are both, then it is obviously not one or the other, but a mix. Like some people are elect, and the rest of us (most of us) are not.

There are nothing in the bible to counteract cause there are no contraditions. There are plenty of contraditions in traditions invented by men to make Pope, who claims to be Jesus on earth, happy. I'm really getting bored with the Catholics. I wish they would come up with at least one truth.

 

[Chandler50]

There nothing in the bible to counteract cause there are no contraditions. There are plenty of contraditions in traditions invented by men to make Pope, who claims to be Jesus on earth, happy. I'm really getting bored with the Catholics. I wish they would come up with at least one truth.

Vicar of Christ, not Christ on Earth. Big difference. So I suppose the trinity is not truth then, because that was established by the Catholic Church.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You make a false claim. I call you out to show me, and you cannot produce the evidence. So you call me names and leave. That is fine. It is not your fault, temper tantrums are just another thing you inherited from following Luther rather then Christ.

I don't follow luther and I didn't call you names and I didn't make any false claim. You did and I called you out on it. I did call you out on your activities which I geuss you are incapable of comprehending that others see what you've writen and can make a honest evaluation of your charactor from those.

People like you are not important enough to anger me. I've dealt with so many just like you it's like a second nature to me. You disappoint me more than anything because Christian's need to keep a certain level of credibility that you have completely shot that to bits.

 

[Chandler50]

I don't follow luther and I didn't call you names. I did call you out on your activities which I geuss you are incapable of comprehending that others see what you've writen and can make a honest evaluation of your charactor from those.

People like you are not important enough to anger me. I've dealt with so many just like you it's like I'm babysitting again, but this time it's with someone with an adults body. You disappoint me more than anything because Christian's need to keep a certain level of credibility that you have completely shot that to bits.

If you adhere to sola scriptura you follow Luther. He invented it in the 1500's and was cast out for heresy. Unlike Holy Tradition that has been passed down since Christ.

And I think thousands of historical documents supporting my view point, on top of the Bible is credibility enough.

Here are the resources for ya:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm

 

[Chandler50]

I don't follow luther and I didn't call you names and I didn't make any false claim. You did and I called you out on it. I did call you out on your activities which I geuss you are incapable of comprehending that others see what you've writen and can make a honest evaluation of your charactor from those.

People like you are not important enough to anger me. I've dealt with so many just like you it's like a second nature to me. You disappoint me more than anything because Christian's need to keep a certain level of credibility that you have completely shot that to bits.

And yes, I hope everyone reviews our back-and-forth. I just had a friend check to make sure I was not misleading and they could not even comprehend the assumptions you made, and lack of evidence to support you claims. Have a great night!

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68582346, member: 235244"]QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68578012, member: 235244"]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.

Nor does Christ make the circular argument "your doctrine is unholy because it is unholy" -

This is a "not so subtle point" that keeps getting glossed over. circular arguments don't work.

Nor does Christ say "you do not have your scripture confirmed by an outside source"

Nor does Christ say "ignore the scripture I am quoting to prove you are in error"

We are talking about slamming the traditions of the church via the Mark 7 method - sola scriptura - where it is found to be in conflict with the Word of God.

I have not identified a single tradition of the Jews or the RCC in my comments - I merely point to the sola scriptura testing model used by Christ to slam the Jewish one-true-church magisterium.

=============================

That is not rejecting all tradition - but it is submitting all tradition to the "sola scriptura" test.
It is "more than a little obvious" that all the Jewish magisterium of Christ's day viewed the tradition he was slamming "sola scriptura" as "holy tradition".

Nothing in there about "your tradition in this case is unholy... because... it is unholy" as we can all see.
Not all tradition is bad when compared to the Bible "authority" defining what is acceptable and what is not.

All/any/whatever RCC tradition that is condemned by Protestants is considered "human tradition" by definition because it contradicts the Bible.

That is "a given".
The question is how is it determined? And the answer is - it is determined to be man-made by comparing it to the Word of God - just as Jesus is doing in Mark 7.

I think both sides can see this point clearly.
It is irrefutable. Which is why I select it.


I simply point out that in Mark 7 Christ is using sola scriptura just as all non-Catholics say it should be applied.(Don't expect an answer to that any time soon)

Do you consider Christ in Mark 7 to be a "random person spouting their opinions"???


QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68586088, member: 235244"]

More precisely in the case of Mark 7:6-13 I have selected a teaching of Christ so profoundly in favor of sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine/tradition/practice that those who oppose it can only do so by avoiding the text entirely.

read Matt 16:
5 Now when His disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

And Mark 2:20-28

As has been repeatedly stated - not all tradition contradicts the Bible. The testing of all tradition against the Bible as Christ is demonstrating for us in Mark 7 - will determine what fails and what stands.

Mark 7 is simply one of the best texts proving that the OP premise is flawed.

And yes, I hope everyone reviews our back-and-forth.

Nice to see this get to such a wonderful point of agreement just then.

We should all be happy to see people reviewing the details in these posts.

 

[Chandler50]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68582346, member: 235244"]QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68578012, member: 235244"]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.

Nor does Christ make the circular argument "your doctrine is unholy because it is unholy" -

This is a "not so subtle point" that keeps getting glossed over. circular arguments don't work.

Nor does Christ say "you do not have your scripture confirmed by an outside source"

Nor does Christ say "ignore the scripture I am quoting to prove you are in error"

We are talking about slamming the traditions of the church via the Mark 7 method - sola scriptura - where it is found to be in conflict with the Word of God.

I have not identified a single tradition of the Jews or the RCC in my comments - I merely point to the sola scriptura testing model used by Christ to slam the Jewish one-true-church magisterium.

=============================

That is not rejecting all tradition - but it is submitting all tradition to the "sola scriptura" test.
It is "more than a little obvious" that all the Jewish magisterium of Christ's day viewed the tradition he was slamming "sola scriptura" as "holy tradition".

Nothing in there about "your tradition in this case is unholy... because... it is unholy" as we can all see.
Not all tradition is bad when compared to the Bible "authority" defining what is acceptable and what is not.

All/any/whatever RCC tradition that is condemned by Protestants is considered "human tradition" by definition because it contradicts the Bible.

That is "a given".
The question is how is it determined? And the answer is - it is determined to be man-made by comparing it to the Word of God - just as Jesus is doing in Mark 7.

I think both sides can see this point clearly.
It is irrefutable. Which is why I select it.


I simply point out that in Mark 7 Christ is using sola scriptura just as all non-Catholics say it should be applied.(Don't expect an answer to that any time soon)

Do you consider Christ in Mark 7 to be a "random person spouting their opinions"???


QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68586088, member: 235244"]

More precisely in the case of Mark 7:6-13 I have selected a teaching of Christ so profoundly in favor of sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine/tradition/practice that those who oppose it can only do so by avoiding the text entirely.

read Matt 16:
5 Now when His disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

And Mark 2:20-28

As has been repeatedly stated - not all tradition contradicts the Bible. The testing of all tradition against the Bible as Christ is demonstrating for us in Mark 7 - will determine what fails and what stands.

Mark 7 is simply one of the best texts proving that the OP premise is flawed.



Nice to see this get to such a wonderful point of agreement just then.

We should all be happy to see people reviewing the details in these posts.

Lol, if we could achieve agreement in one day, I doubt Christendom would be split a thousand ways. Besides, the truth does not need agreement.