Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Goatee · Sep 11, 2015

sunlover1 said:
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.

Thats right, but, i am on about 'Tradition' Not tradition of mere men! The 1,000s of churches that have sprouted up use tradition of mere men, not from the Holy Spirit!

Jesus did say IT IS WRITTEN. But, what he was teaching and what the Apostles taught later was 'Not' written. It was through the Holy Spirit that these words came. Then they were written as we know them today in the NT. But, the Holy Spirit continues to work through the church. It grows within the church. Scripture grows via the Holy Spirit!!

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

Chandler50 said:
Lol, show me the word trinity in the Bible. If you can't, the Catholic Church recognized the concept even though it is not explicitly taught, and gave the concept a name.

God is past, present and future. The three is one. You're probably included.

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

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

It means the bible is completed. Don't add anything to it.

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

Dialogist said:
OK, thanks.

Would this include the gnostic Gospels?

Those are written by men without the inspiration from God. They are like urantia books

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

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.

Twisted tradition and true traditions are the same. Still invented by men who added to the Scriptures

Albion · Sep 11, 2015

Job8 said:
How would you describe "predestined for Hell"?

Even those few Christians who believe in double predestination don't seem to me to think that God wants to lose those people or takes any satisfaction from the idea that some of his creatures will be eternally estranged from him. We know that this was not his intention at the time of Creation.

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
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.

Lot of Catholics supported Luther at the courts but we're afraid to speak up in fear of being burned to death at stake. Luther refused to recant and followed the wills of the Holy Spirit. See, God was with Luther. It shows the RCC took their own path according to their own traditions and fell apart. They tried to save the church through orthodox church but it also fell apart. God brought Protestants and the reformation and now the church is alive and well without false traditions. RCC are listed among JW, Mormons and others

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

Job8 said:
How would you describe "predestined for Hell"?

God passes over the sinners and collects the elects

Dialogist · Sep 11, 2015

tulipbee said:
Those are written by men without the inspiration from God. They are like urantia books

How do we know that these particular books are written by men without inspiration from God?

Albion · Sep 11, 2015

Dialogist said:
How do we know that these particular books are written by men without inspiration from God?

1. The church and no branch of it has ever accepted them as inspired.
2. The contents either show no continuity with the rest of the Bible books or else are clearly in opposition to them.

Of course, it could still be answered, "Who is to say?" But this (above) is a reliable guide, and it's never a good idea to opt for believing any writing has been inspired by God simply because a few people think it's reasonable or appealing. IMHO the comparison that was made to Urantia was appropriate.

AHH who-stole-my-name · Sep 11, 2015

tulipbee said:
Lot of Catholics supported Luther at the courts but we're afraid to speak up in fear of being burned to death at stake. Luther refused to recant and followed the wills of the Holy Spirit. See, God was with Luther. It shows the RCC took their own path according to their own traditions and fell apart. They tried to save the church through orthodox church but it also fell apart. God brought Protestants and the reformation and now the church is alive and well without false traditions. RCC are listed among JW, Mormons and others

Well, I have nothing against Catholics or any other religions for that matter. I do have a rather tarnished veiw of JW, because I had to endur them. The reason I interjected into this thread was because of the antibiblical tones that are taken here and that had more to do, I think with promoting Catholisism over any other religion and that's just arogant assumption.

Dialogist · Sep 11, 2015

Albion said:
1. The church and no branch of it has ever accepted them as inspired.
2. The contents either show no continuity with the rest of the Bible books or else are clearly in opposition to them.

Of course, it could still be answered, "Who is to say?" But this (above) is a reliable guide, and it's never a good idea to opt for believing any writing has been inspired by God simply because a few people think it's reasonable or appealing. IMHO the comparison that was made to Urantia was appropriate.

That was the point I was trying to coax out. If, as others have suggested, Sola Scriptura means

Chandler50 said:
the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice

then the Bible must somehow be auto-authenticating.

I would offer the following points for discussion:

1. When "Scripture" is referred to in the New Testament, it refers to the Old Testament, since at the time of the events that the New Testament documents there were no New Testament scriptures.

2. The books that comprise the New Testament were chosen from the writings that were extant in the first few centuries of Christianity and came to be included in the canon through decisions of various Church councils, starting with the local Council of Carthage in 397 and culminating with the final ratification of the current canon for the whole Church at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 787.

3. One could argue that the decisions of the various Church councils were irrelevant, since the Holy Spirit presumably guided the body of believers as a whole to perceive which books belonged in the canon and which did not. But this belief in itself implies that it is not the Bible, in fact, that is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice, but is rather the Holy Spirit itself, as it guides "the Church" - whether one believes "the Church" to mean some amorphous, non-hierarchical "body of believers", one of the Churches of Apostolic Succession, or something else altogether.

4. If exegesis of a portion of Scripture (e.g. the Old Testament) led believers to add additional writings to the canon, then one is trusting in the "authority" (for lack of a better word) of the one or ones doing the exegesis. For example, in the second century a great many believers put their trust in the exegesis of Marcion of Sinope, who maintained that the Bible should only consist of the Gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul. His canon was, in fact, the first recorded canon in Christian history, if I am not mistaken.

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

Thats really really easy and on top of that, its scientifically been proven that the other books are not inspired by God. Those that want to dig deeper can Google Ivan panin or http://www.theomatics.com those that are not interested in the proofs should not reply.
The hint is the fact that RCC made it a tradition to include the extra 7 books in the bible and call it complete while the popes authorize it to be from God. The proofs are there the the extra books are not inspired by God and that makes the new traditions false and not from God.

Albion · Sep 11, 2015

Dialogist said:
That was the point I was trying to coax out. If, as others have suggested, Sola Scriptura means

then the Bible must somehow be auto-authenticating.

I would offer the following points for discussion:

1. When "Scripture" is referred to in the New Testament, it refers to the Old Testament, since at the time of the events that the New Testament documents there were no New Testament scriptures.

Technically, that's probably so. It requires us to disregard some other considerations, but it's a reasonable point. I would not agree that it is conclusive in eliminating the Gospels, for example.

3. One could argue that the decisions of the various Church councils were irrelevant, since the Holy Spirit presumably guided the body of believers as a whole to perceive which books belonged in the canon and which did not. But this belief in itself implies that it is not the Bible, in fact, that is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice, but is rather the Holy Spirit itself, as it guides "the Church" - whether one believes "the Church" to mean some amorphous, non-hierarchical "body of believers", one of the Churches of Apostolic Succession, or something else altogether.

Frankly, I don't see the point here. No one is denying the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It seems a separate issue.

Dialogist · Sep 11, 2015

tulipbee said:
The hint is the fact that RCC made it a tradition to include the extra 7 books in the bible and call it complete

What are you referring to here?

tulipbee · Sep 11, 2015

Dialogist said:
What are you referring to here?

Referring to Catholics claiming they wrote the bible while it is God that inspired men of his choice. In other words the Catholic library is just a library. My local library has no right the claim the own Moby dick cause the have a copy of it. The writers of the bible are men. The Catholics don't own those men. There just men that wrote the bible inspired by God. They didn't call themselves Catholics. The RCC did and made it a tradition like own the bible.

Dialogist · Sep 11, 2015

tulipbee said:
Referring to Catholics claiming they wrote the bible while it is God that inspired men of his choice. In other words the Catholic library is just a library. My local library has no right the claim the own Moby dick cause the have a copy of it. The writers of the bible are men. The Catholics don't own those men. There just men that wrote the bible inspired by God. They didn't call themselves Catholics. The RCC did and made it a tradition like own the bible.

I guess I should have been clearer.

Perhaps it is in an earlier post, but what seven books are you referring to that the RCC added?

Goatee · Sep 11, 2015

tulipbee said:
Twisted tradition and true traditions are the same. Still invented by men who added to the Scriptures