Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Chandler50 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Established by Jesus

Chandler50 said:

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.

Click to expand...

We did just have agreement - we apparently both agree that it would be a great thing if readers would check in and read the back-and-forth in the posts -- especially - paying attention to details EVEN when those details come from the actual Bible.

Chandler50 said:

Please check all my posts. If you one time that I claimed that 1 Cor 10 refers to the Bible being divided like the last person did, be my guest.

Click to expand...

you will notice that my posts do not focus on 1 Cor 10

Rather on Acts 17:11 and on Mark 7:6-13.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE if those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO"

and of course this...

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68586752, 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"???


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.

Could someone actually define what everyone understands "sola scriptura" to mean?

Chandler50 said:

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

Click to expand...

OK, thanks.

Would this include the gnostic Gospels?

Chandler50 said:

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

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Just as Christ shows us in Mark 7:6-13.

Dialogist said:

Could someone actually define what everyone understands "sola scriptura" to mean?

Click to expand...

It means all doctrine and tradition are to be tested by the Bible - as Christ did in Mark 7:6-13
As even in the OT was demanded in Isaiah 8:20.
As the saints do in Acts 17:11.

It does not mean that all doctrine and tradition are evil - it means that all are to be tested.

Chandler50 said:

Yup, and it refers to human tradition. We have been over this.

Click to expand...

yes you keep using the circular argument that invents a Mark 7:6-13 that says "your human tradition is human tradition so it must be human tradition" -- when in fact that is a "conclusion" that Christ defends -- by testing .. by proving it to be the case with sola-scriptura testing.

So far your only defense in the case of Mark 7 is to "avoid the details".

BobRyan said:

It means all doctrine and tradition are to be tested by the Bible - as Christ did in Mark 7:6-13
As even in the OT was demanded in Isaiah 8:20.
As the saints do in Acts 17:11.

It does not mean that all doctrine and tradition are evil - it means that all are to be tested.

Click to expand...

What if I argued that the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Acts don't belong in the Bible, so we can't be certain that the events reported in Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 are actually true.

antletems said:

Scripture alone is not supreme and if you look at the 1,000s of churches that have sprung up since Luther you will see that these 'churches' like to interpret scripture in their own unique way! They like to twist it to suit their needs and even change it to suit their needs. True 'Tradition' comes from the Church that Jesus started, The Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

You've just made a great point AGAINST traditions of men.
Like you said, the thousands of churches like to interpret Scripture in their own unique way. And sorry friend but yours is no different. And it's not the only church that claims this apostolic succession either. God bless you though! I was raised to believe that too.
Truth of the matter though,
Scripture is and always has been supreme.
Jesus refered to it and I do too.
He didn't say "So and so said"
He said, IT IS WRITTEN!
Good enough for Him, good enough for me.

Chandler50 said:

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!

Click to expand...

Yeah.... A friend. Of course it's got to be a quote/unquote anonymous friend. It simply couldn't be someone who could speak for themself. OH No that might just make your accusation half way credible. Couldn't be inconsistant after all that you've posted thus far. now could we!. That's just sad, really really sad.

sunlover1 said:

Scripture is and always has been supreme.
Jesus refered to it and I do too.
He didn't say "So and so said"
He said, IT IS WRITTEN!
Good enough for Him, good enough for me.

Click to expand...

All the churches have to do for unity is agree that ALL scripture should be followed to the best of our ability today.

Chandler50 said:

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

Click to expand...

As I've said. I don't follow Luther and I'm not looking through all that for one piece of information that you say is in there. I love it when people toss out a these things and say go find it, when they could post the link to the specific subject and be done with it.

What exactly is this holy tradiction outside what church dogma has decided it is? Seems to me you are claiming that everything Catholic is tradiction because the Catholics believe it.

pat34lee said:

All the churches have to do for unity is agree that ALL scripture should be followed to the best of our ability today.

Click to expand...

Trouble is they have a power base to continue. If they can't defend their predomenace then they would have no leg to stand on.

Albion said:

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

Click to expand...

How would you describe "predestined for Hell"?

Chandler50 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Exactly.