Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[tulipbee]

Actually, just about EVERY denomination agrees on those 66 books. A few churches have 7 more, some have 1 in addition, another few have some other book or books the other churches don't have, but the 66 are nearly universal. We're talking about books that would belong in the Old Testament if they were included, and the decision is based upon what the Jews of Jesus' own time accepted.

I was hoping to track down who was lead by the holy spirit in completing the collections of the books and called it THE bible and what atheist added the extra seven books the mislead the RCC into a false situation

 

[Albion]

I was hoping to track down who was lead by the holy spirit in completing the collections of the books and called it THE bible.

Several Church councils in the 300s made that decision (which is called "canonization," literally, putting on a list). Some people believe that their decision was made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; others consider it merely a human bookkeeping job since all the books that were included were already considered by the various churches of the Christian world at that time to be divinely inspired writings.

 

[tulipbee]

Several Church councils in the 300s made that decision (which is called "canonization," literally, putting on a list). Some people believe that their decision was made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; others consider it merely a human bookkeeping job since all the books that were included were already considered by the various churches of the Christian world at that time to be divinely inspired writings.

Who added the uninspired 7 extra books and when? Who tried to ruin the bible?

 

[Albion]

Who added the uninspired 7 extra books and when? Who tried to ruin the bible?

They were tentatively included by those councils. Later, during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the Protestants eliminated them for several good reasons--as being inspired writings, that is, although Anglicans and Lutherans retained them to be read for guidance in 'morals and manners' if not to establish any doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church responded to that by deciding to make most, but not all, of these books inspired.

 

[Goatee]

Thing is, the whole bible was written under the Holy Spirit! 66, or more, the real thing that matters is that Jesus is the True Son of God. He died for our sins and Rose again on the 3rd day. All this bickering about the extra books detracts from the true message of Christ!

We need the Holy Spirit to guide us. Jesus said that we would not be left alone.

God bless you all

 

[BobRyan]

Thing is, the whole bible was written under the Holy Spirit! 66, or more, the real thing that matters is that Jesus is the True Son of God. He died for our sins and Rose again on the 3rd day

It is true that pretty much all Christian do agree to that.

. All this bickering about the extra books detracts from the true message of Christ!

When you read the OP on this thread do you see "extra books" as the subject??

I also agree with those who affirm that God did not leave us 2000 years ago and that divine inspiration continues.

 

[BobRyan]

How do we know when "the tradition" is from God, or is Gods will, and not from someone else?

By using Christ's Mark 7:6-13 sola scriptura test.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not want to be have to answer to God if I plant a church outside of Christ's.

Which is why we choose to follow Christ's method of sola scriptura testing as He demonstrates for us in Mark 7:6-13

 

[Goatee]

I say again, Mark 7 is about the OT and 'tradition' not 'Tradition' as left by Jesus on the Catholic church!!!

Read this in its entirety as it may help you understand:

https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/481/Jeff_Cavins___Scripture_is_Tradition.html

 

[Root of Jesse]

Who added the uninspired 7 extra books and when? Who tried to ruin the bible?

How could something be considered inspired for 1500 years, and then said to be uninspired after all that time?

 

[Root of Jesse]

By using Christ's Mark 7:6-13 sola scriptura test.

So we seem to see that you've left out the entire rest of Scripture?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I say again, Mark 7 is about the OT and 'tradition' not 'Tradition' as left by Jesus on the Catholic church!!!

Read this in its entirety as it may help you understand:

https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/481/Jeff_Cavins___Scripture_is_Tradition.html

Great link. Dr. D'Ambrosio's website is wonderful.

 

[Albion]

How do we know when "the tradition" is from God, or is Gods will, and not from someone else?

According to the theory of "Holy Tradition," it would be God speaking to the church if the "tradition" were continuous from the Apostles, the consensus of the Church at all times, and believed throughout the churches (as opposed to being a local custom or legend, etc.).

And this is the reason "Holy Tradition" isn't genuine. In addition to an absence of any guidance from Scripture that there is such a second stream equal to Scripture...the defining characteristics identified above are almost always absent. But the dogmatizing of new doctrines goes on anyway, always with the claim that the church always believed it, even though it hadn't.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How could something be considered inspired for 1500 years, and then said to be uninspired after all that time?

I never realized that the Council of Trent was held in the sixth century and not the sixteenth century. Perhaps you accidentally added the 1,000 and really meant 500 instead.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I never realized that the Council of Trent was held in the sixth century and not the sixteenth century. Perhaps you accidentally added the 1,000 and really meant 500 instead.

I never realized that, just because something was set down as law in the 16th century, it would not have been held as true for the previous 1000 years.
In other words, because it was set in stone at one time does not mean it wasn't believed previously. The canon of Scripture was set at the councils or Rome and Hippo.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I never realized that, just because something was set down as law in the 16th century, it would not have been held as true for the previous 1000 years.
In other words, because it was set in stone at one time does not mean it wasn't believed previously. The canon of Scripture was set at the councils or Rome and Hippo.

The difficulty, of course, is that various canons of scripture were held by various churches long before the Reformation and that no canon had been established for the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent made its determination. As it is, the canon your church believes was not and is not the same as other branches of the Church. If the canon had been established prior to Trent then, assuredly, other branches would have been in full agreement with Trent's conclusion - but they weren't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

According to the theory of "Holy Tradition," it would be God speaking to the church if the "tradition" were continuous from the Apostles, the consensus of the Church at all times, and believed throughout the churches (as opposed to being a local custom or legend, etc.).

First, it's not a theory. Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to his apostles, who in turn handed it down to their disciples (the early Church Fathers), and then to the next generation, and then finally to us. How do we know this? Well, for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the apostles and disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. Yes, you might say, but didn't Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., write everything down in their epistles and gospels? Yes, they did, but none of it was widely available to geographically separated disciples and it wasn't part of "The Bible" until the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage put the 27 books of the New Testament together in 382 AD, 393 AD, and 397 AD. At that time, it took on the mantle of infallible scripture with the Old Testament. Interestingly, Protestants today accept this Catholic "Tradition" of these 27 books of the Bible being divinely inspired. Protestants also accept the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday.
And this is the reason "Holy Tradition" isn't genuine. In addition to an absence of any guidance from Scripture that there is such a second stream equal to Scripture...the defining characteristics identified above are almost always absent. But the dogmatizing of new doctrines goes on anyway, always with the claim that the church always believed it, even though it hadn't.

There are some instances of Sacred Tradition in the Bible that are interesting. For instance, in Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:

"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is moreblessed to give than to receive.'"
These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Root of Jesse]

The difficulty, of course, is that various canons of scripture were held by various churches long before the Reformation and that no canon had been established for the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent made its determination. As it is, the canon your church believes was not and is not the same as other branches of the Church. If the canon had been established prior to Trent then, assuredly, other branches would have been in full agreement with Trent's conclusion - but they weren't.

And yet Rome, Hippo and Carthage came up with the exact same Canon.
The Church set it in stone at Trent because of the Protestant attack which questioned it. BTW, there are no other branches of the Church. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism...

 

[Albion]

First, it's not a theory.

Yes, it's a theory. It has no place in scripture and was not part of the Apostolic church. It developed later on and is merely a concept that's useful to any church that wants to augment the historic faith with new doctrines.

 

[Albion]

And yet Rome, Hippo and Carthage came up with the exact same Canon.
The Church set it in stone at Trent because of the Protestant attack which questioned it..

Except that we already have noted that the Church did NOT do that. It made its own alterations.