Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68660438, member: 235244"]As much as I do enjoy debunking the dead-end suggestion that there was no OT scritpure known and accepted by both Christians and Jews in the NT --

I think we should get back to the point

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

Sola scriptura -- in real life - just as Christ demonstrated for us in Mark 7


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.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

escaping from Mark 7 -- is not an option.



They were using the one that Josephus said they already had - the one unchanged for 400 years.

And Mark 7 is even in Catholic Bibles - so not sure how your answer above helps you.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't unchanged to some. When they received the word, they received the word of Paul.
Mark 7, in it's entirety, not removing or adding to it, does not speak to Sola Scriptural.

 

[Wgw]

1. The Jews had the content of our 39 books long before the Septuagint.
2. Jerome did not include the 10 extra books without a lot of arm twisting - and even when he added them - he declared them to be "apocrypha" and not canon.
3. the early King James - English translation - comes after Luther and did include the Apocrypha - but not as canon.

3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.


6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.


9. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

10. And it is not clear at all how the Apocrypha discussion applies to the sola scriptura test of all doctrine and tradition discussion - unless there is a Catholic statement that certain RC doctrines and traditions are refuted by the Bible - but would be sustained if the apocrypha were added.

Alas, these remarks although voluminous suffer from the very considerable disadvantage of being wrong. The early church universally accepted the authority of the LXX, even in those poetions of the church like mine where an alternative such as the Peshitta was used. The LXX is attested to by the dead sea scrolls and most signifigantly predates the birth of Chrost, and has been in continual use by the church for a period of time that exceeds by a few decades the age of the four canonical gospels. So there is simply no conceivable reason why one should trust the Leningrad Codex over it.

Alas regarding the question of Sola Scriptura the use of the MT by most people who believe in this innovative doctrine simply shows the danger in it. In any case Sola Scriptura does not meet its own criteria.

 

[BobRyan]

Alas, these remarks although voluminous suffer from the very considerable disadvantage of being wrong. The early church universally accepted the authority of the LXX, even in those poetions of the church like mine where an alternative such as the Peshitta was used.

1. Jerome was translating from Hebrew and Aramaic - not from the Greek LXX.
2. The post from me Today at 8:50 AM #852 that you quote in your post - was not arguing against the LXX being used by Greek Christian - if you find something in my post saying that the LXX was rejected by Greek Christians - please point to it.

Alas regarding the question of Sola Scriptura the use of the MT by most people who believe in this innovative doctrine simply shows the danger in it.

On the contrary we show Christ actually using it in Mark 7:6-13.

And we show it approved of by the church in Acts 17:11.

Thus "sola scriptura" meets its own criteria.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

escaping from Mark 7 -- is not an option.

They were using the one that Josephus said they already had - the one unchanged for 400 years.

And Mark 7 is even in Catholic Bibles - so not sure how your answer above helps you.

It wasn't unchanged to some. When they received the word, they received the word of Paul.
Mark 7, in it's entirety, not removing or adding to it, does not speak to Sola Scriptural.[/QUOTE]

Can you prove that speculative claim -- since in real life we 'see' Christ using Sola Scriptura to prove to the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - that their supposedly holy, sacred, infallible tradition was flawed.

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.

 

[Wgw]

I contend that those verses do not in any sense constitute an endorsement of Sola Scriptura, and my contention is aided by the fact that no extant writings from the early church suggest they do; we do not encounter this doctrine in any signifigant way until the 16th century. There were many controversies in the early church but this was not one of them, which confirms that Luther erred in introducing it.

The consequences of this error are the beliefs held in your denomination, for example, concerning a great apostasy, but this would mean the gates of Hell had prevailed against the Church which we are assured would not happen.

 

[BobRyan]

I contend that those verses do not in any sense constitute an endorsement of Sola Scriptura

Can you demonstrate that your contention in that regard survives the details "in the text"??

Your argument confines itself to avoiding the details in the text so far.

Your appeal to later tradition as your only argument for your POV is hardly satisfying the requirement to sustain your prior claim that "sola scripture does not pass its own test" given that we actually have it in Mark 7 and your only solution is to wait a few hundred years after that for some Catholic council to not notice that detail.

Wouldn't you already have to "be" in the anti-sola-scriptura camp to be satisfied with that sort of proof against Mark 7??

What if the Jews in Mark 7 used your tactic? Entirely avoiding the details in the statements made by Christ in Mark 7 - and simply circling back to their own tradition?

What teaching of Christ "could not be rejected" using such a method??

 

[tulipbee]

Of course it's in doubt. So's your salvation. Stumbling and falling (and not getting up again) would prevent our entrance to heaven, brother. I know you think you're saved and that's it. I'm still working out my salvation, and will until the end of my life. Life is a journey, heaven is the reward for successful perseverance.

I'm just an observer. We're a reflection of something already happen. Observing is like the mirror. You just observe your elected spirit. If the holy spirit is guiding and leading you then there's nothing you can do but to observe. If the saving already happen then you'll need to quiet your mind and calm the waves smaller so you can see further during observation. Then you'll see the lighthouse where salvation comes from. Being busymindness isn't helping.

 

[Wgw]

Alas BobRyan I think you know well that I cannot give you what you want, because the Orthodox regard the tradition that surrounds the text and the text itself as part of the same tradition. Your own denominatin Inshould lament to point out regards thenwritings of Ellen G White as an authoritative source of meta-data regarding the scriptural text; the dofference is mainly our sources begin concurrently with the text itself and then continue in an uninterrupted succession.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I'd rather go by the unchanging Word than those who sit in Peter's seat and change ideologies every century.

Catholicism, at least in the West, is an ever morphing, contradictory phenomenon. Luther and Calvin called it the desolate church- the Bible heavily prescribes the Roman Church as being such.. it's extraordinarily blatant even. What is the Catholic defense to it? Preterism?

I'm not a fan of preterism, with Constantine being the white horse and all. It's too convenient.

 

[Wgw]

A major and regrettable difference between Orthodoxy, Eastern and Oriental, and Catholicism, is that while the Orthodox refuse changes as a general principle, the Roman Catholics tend to favor them in certain circumstances, and occasionally that spills into the eastern Catholic churches distressingly enough. My hope is that the remarkable comeback of the traditional Latin mass might in time give rise to a sense of "Western Orthodoxy" that will gradually revert that. I think we must also admit that the RCC of today is considerably better than under Pope Leo X.

 

[Goatee]

I'd rather go by the unchanging Word than those who sit in Peter's seat and change ideologies every century.

Catholicism, at least in the West, is an ever morphing, contradictory phenomenon. Luther and Calvin called it the desolate church- the Bible heavily prescribes the Roman Church as being such.. it's extraordinarily blatant even. What is the Catholic defense to it? Preterism?

I'm not a fan of preterism, with Constantine being the white horse and all. It's too convenient.

The core teaching of the church have always remained the same!

 

[Wgw]

The core teaching of the church have always remained the same!

There is no evidence to suggest that the Roman church in the fourth century subscribed to the filioque, the Augustinian-Anselmian soteriology, absolute divine simplicity, created grace, communion in one species only, the notion of papal infallibility (Pope Victor I tried that around the year 200 and was told off by the other archbishophrics), et cetera.

That being said the RC church is still recognizeable to the Orthodox and can still be regarded as correct when it comes ro a range of theological basics. There are several RC members on these fora like DrBubbaLove who do sterling service defending the position of the ancient church against innovation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

1. Jerome was translating from Hebrew and Aramaic - not from the Greek LXX.
2. The post from me Today at 8:50 AM #852 that you quote in your post - was not arguing against the LXX being used by Greek Christian - if you find something in my post saying that the LXX was rejected by Greek Christians - please point to it.



On the contrary we show Christ actually using it in Mark 7:6-13.

And we show it approved of by the church in Acts 17:11.

Thus "sola scriptura" meets its own criteria.

in Christ,

Bob

The LXX contained certain books. Jerome translated those books, which were in the LXX, from their original language.
No, you don't.
No, you don't.
No, it doesn't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It wasn't unchanged to some. When they received the word, they received the word of Paul.
Mark 7, in it's entirety, not removing or adding to it, does not speak to Sola Scriptura.

Can you prove that speculative claim -- since in real life we 'see' Christ using Sola Scriptura to prove to the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - that their supposedly holy, sacred, infallible tradition was flawed.

Sure. The Pharisees were not the magisterium. The Sanhedrin was, which consisted of some of the Pharisees and some of the Sadducees. Some of them held one body of "scripture", some held another. Christ, by and large, quoted from the LXX, when quoting "Scripture". Mark 7:1-6 shows, in context, who Mark 7:7-13 is speaking of and to. He's speaking of the man-made laws the Elders of Israel put in place to put people away from the near occasion to break the 10 Commandments, which the Pharisees used as 'gotchas' for the people, which they enforced to the letter, ignoring the spirit of the law. Jesus proves this over and over, for example, when the apostles were plucking grain on the Sabbath.

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'd rather go by the unchanging Word than those who sit in Peter's seat and change ideologies every century.

Catholicism, at least in the West, is an ever morphing, contradictory phenomenon. Luther and Calvin called it the desolate church- the Bible heavily prescribes the Roman Church as being such.. it's extraordinarily blatant even. What is the Catholic defense to it? Preterism?

I'm not a fan of preterism, with Constantine being the white horse and all. It's too convenient.

The core of Catholicism has not changed. Even things such as the nature of God, the Trinity, the filioque, and so on, rose out of deepening questions about God. While some may disagree, as our Orthodox brothers and sisters do, as to what these things mean, we still hold the same beliefs.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A major and regrettable difference between Orthodoxy, Eastern and Oriental, and Catholicism, is that while the Orthodox refuse changes as a general principle, the Roman Catholics tend to favor them in certain circumstances, and occasionally that spills into the eastern Catholic churches distressingly enough. My hope is that the remarkable comeback of the traditional Latin mass might in time give rise to a sense of "Western Orthodoxy" that will gradually revert that. I think we must also admit that the RCC of today is considerably better than under Pope Leo X.

Most of the differences you mention are not Tradition, but practices. They do change with the times, but are not material changes, though one might say that modern liturgical music and some other liturgical innovations are material, since they deal with the Liturgy.

 

[Wgw]

Most of the differences you mention are not Tradition, but practices. They do change with the times, but are not material changes, though one might say that modern liturgical music and some other liturgical innovations are material, since they deal with the Liturgy.

In many cases these innovations are from what I understand uncanonical, but episcopal enforcement is mostly lacking. There are very few RC dioceses I can think of where I like the bishop, which is distressing; there are some RC bishops I like a great deal, though, for example Cardinal Burke or Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco.

By the way your additional comments on the LXX and the Vulgate in refutation of our SDA interlocutor are spot on. I am not sure why he is even defending sola scriptura so adamantly given the exalted status the writings of Ellen White hold in his own denomination. My point is that at least in Orthodocy and Catholicism the majority of extra-scriptural literature used in a definitive way to guide interpretation is genuinely ancient.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm just an observer. We're a reflection of something already happen. Observing is like the mirror. You just observe your elected spirit. If the holy spirit is guiding and leading you then there's nothing you can do but to observe. If the saving already happen then you'll need to quiet your mind and calm the waves smaller so you can see further during observation. Then you'll see the lighthouse where salvation comes from. Being busymindness isn't helping.

You may think you're just an observer, but you certainly have the free choice to turn away.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In many cases these innovations are from what I understand uncanonical, but episcopal enforcement is mostly lacking. There are very few RC dioceses I can think of where I like the bishop, which is distressing; there are some RC bishops I like a great deal, though, for example Cardinal Burke or Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco.

I agree about a lot of bishops, and your examples are some of my favorites. I know Archbishop Cordileone to some extent-he's one of my heroes. There are a lot of bishops, though, who don't have a backbone, when it comes to Catholic teaching. My parish in the diocese of Oakland is run by Franciscans, the orthodox ones.

By the way your additional comments on the LXX and the Vulgate in refutation of our SDA interlocutor are spot on. I am not sure why he is even defending sola scriptura so adamantly given the exalted status the writings of Ellen White hold in his own denomination. My point is that at least in Orthodocy and Catholicism the majority of extra-scriptural literature used in a definitive way to guide interpretation is genuinely ancient.

Amen.

 

[Job8]

I contend that those verses do not in any sense constitute an endorsement of Sola Scriptura, and my contention is aided by the fact that no extant writings from the early church suggest they do...

Evidently those extant writings did not closely examine Psalm 119. That Psalm in itself is sufficient evidence that the written Word of God is SOLELY SUFFICIENT for every spiritual need. The only reason Sola Scriptura is opposed is because it brings down the house of cards called "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition".