Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

Standing Up said:
Traditions that various groups like RC, EO, or OO, hold vary and are contradictory to each other. Traditions are all found outside of and apart from the scripture record. For example, RC (Magisterium) believes it is the sole interpreter of scripture. EO and OO and P would disagree. This is what makes Tradition so tricky. No one agrees on what it is.

Besides, the Traditions extant in Paul's time aren't followed anyway (like a floating "easter"). So Tradition is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to bite.

The variance between the EO, OO and RC positions is very slight and does not primarily concern Tradition, but rather, in the case of the Orthodox vs. RC perspective, a dispute over questions of polity and ecclesiology, and to the very minor extent that EO and OO diverge, to a trifling dispute about whether or not the Tome of Leo is acceptable as an interpretation of the Cyrillian Christology in refutation of Nestorius, which is now increasingly disregarded by all except a few inane traditionalists and paranoid individuals, so that for example the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochians (EO) now basically allow intercommunion and intermarriage throughout the middle East.

Now on the subject of Quartodecimianism, which you call "the floating Easter", this was never the unified position of the church but was rather a localized deviation in praxis in places like Smyrna. The Council of Nicea did not impose a new scheme for computing the date of Pascha but rather merely codified an existing system which by 325 was used by most of the Church.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

Standing Up said:
You mean OO Tradition with its grab-bag of books.

Anyway, to the point, John upholds the sufficiency of scripture. Or are you still looking for help deciding about dinner or what to wear Sunday?

Holy Tradition does not specify what to wear on Sunday, except that the Pauline epistles mandate head coverings for women.

I did not mean OO tradition, because the Athanasian canon is a shared tradition used by almost all Christians aside from a few neo-Gnostics who enjoy reading The Gospel of Thomas or The Tripartite Tractate before their afternoon LSD trip. It is a tradition which even you use in all probability, because you could not attempt (unsuccessfully) to declare scripture as all-sufficient without some idea as to what Scripture is.

At any rate OO tradition is not a grab-bag of books; the only books most OO families have are a Bible and a prayer book / Psalter such as the Coptic Agpeya (in which the 150 Psalms are read daily along with corresponding Gospel passages and appropriate prayers). Even then strictly speaking one does not need these books; historically before the printing press they were too expensive, and thus people memorized the Psalter, for example. There are typically four scripture lessons in a Coptic or Syriac Orthodox Sunday morning liturgy, in addition to those from Matins (making a total of six or seven), and more scripture in total is read in the average Oriental Orthodox church on a single Sunday than one might hear in many Protestant churches in an entire month.

BobRyan · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
You are resorting to eisegesis, distorting the meaning of the Gospel in order to prop up a vision of your own denomination which does nkt actually conform to reality.

Just not in real life.

The SDA is one of the least Sola Scriptura denominations on the planet;

Just not in real life.

In real life the Bible avoidance you are using on this thread is consistent with your tradition.

In real life - the sola scriptura method I am using is consistent with my denomination.

You can make factless accusation after factless accusation all day long - but it is real life that actually matters. Facts not simply "accusation"

The primary evidence that your position is erroneous is that our Lord promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, and since the Christian church was entirely governed by holy tradition, this requires you to fall back on "Great Apostasy" theology which is inherently unscriptural.

Until you read the actual Bible.

Acts 20
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura

2 Thess 2
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura.

It is real life where your false accusations have difficulty.

BobRyan · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
Yet St. John does not provide a table of contents for the New Testament or indeed the Old, so thus, even in binding the works of Scripture together we have to resort to Tradition in the form of the Athanasian Canon.

Until we notice that in real life - John and his readers were all reading scripture long before the "Athanasian Canon" label came along almost three centuries later.

That's right no NT saints 'waiting for three centuries' to read scripture.

As Christ points out.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

BobRyan said:
Just not in real life.

Just not in real life.

In real life the Bible avoidance you are using on this thread is consistent with your tradition.

In real life - the sola scriptura method I am using is consistent with my denomination.

You can make factless accusation after factless accusation all day long - but it is real life that actually matters. Facts not simply "accusation"

Until you read the actual Bible.

Acts 20
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura

2 Thess 2
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura.

It is real life where your false accusations have difficulty.

Acts 20:30 refers to the rise of heretical sects like the Gnostics, the Ebionites, and in modern times, the SDA. 2 Thess 2:3 refers to the anti-Christ which some radical Protestants ascribe to the Pope; this argument does not concern the Orthodox since we do not have a supreme Pontiff (the Patriarch of Alexandria was and is referred to as "Papem", or "Pope" in English; and was since the second century, whereas the Patriarch of Rome was not styled Pope until around 500 years later, but that was still centuries before the Great Schism and Papal Supremacy).

The SDA's doctrines are in fact derived from the nonsensical interpretations of Ellen G. White.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

BobRyan said:
Until we notice that in real life - John and his readers were all reading scripture long before the "Athanasian Canon" label came along almost three centuries later.

That's right no NT saints 'waiting for three centuries' to read scripture.

As Christ points out.

When the NT saints refer to Scripture, they are of course referring to various Old Testament books, but not the limited canon of the Masoretic text; St. Jude quotes 1 Enoch and other Apostles quote from the Septuagint, which includes books regarded as the Wisdom of Sirach. So alas, that is somewhat of a non-point.

Albion · Oct 3, 2015

Standing Up said:
You mean OO Tradition with its grab-bag of books.

Certainly...and as opposed to RCC Tradition, EO Tradition, OC Tradition, and the Traditions of each of the other unreformed churches.

Strangely enough, none of them ever is willing even to acknowledge the substantial doctrinal differences between these churches, all of whom claim "Tradition" as their infallible guiding light. Not when talking with us, anyway.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

Albion said:
Certainly...and as opposed to RCC Tradition, EO Tradition, OC Tradition, and the Traditions of each of the other unreformed churches.

Strangely enough, none of them ever is willing even to acknowledge the substantial doctrinal differences between these churches, all of whom claim "Tradition" as their infallible guiding light. Not when talking with us, anyway.

There are in fact no substantial doctrinal differences between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox; the disagrement over Chalcedon concerns only a few petty sectarians primarily concentrated in ROCOR, Serbia, and the Metropolitanate of Pireaus on the EO sode, and a minority of Copts and Ethiopians on the OO side.

Between the Catholics and the Orthodox there are differences but these relate to polity and ecclesiology; the Roman Rite has some theological but these are largely absent in the Eastern Catholic churches, but this does not really represent a divergence of Tradition.

There is no disagreement between the apostolic churches on the core Nicene section of tradition, and no meaningful disagreement between East and West until the Filioque Controversy, which is again not a matter of Tradition but rather a matter of polity and ecclesiology (to what extent is an autocephalous church bound by the canons of prior ecumenical councils, and to what extent does the primus inter pares posess the ability to unilaterally rule on these matters?)

The Anglican Church also embraces Tradition, along with Scrioture and Reason, as one of three sources of authority. So your position is in fact inconsistent with your own denomination. There are a great many Anglo Catholics and High Church Anglicans who would bitterly object to the stance you are taking against Tradition.

But then again, Anglicanism at its best is essentially Orthodox except to the extent that latitudinarianism prevents it from divesting itself of the low church set.

Albion · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
There are in fact no substantial doctrinal differences between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox; the disagrement over Chalcedon concerns only a few petty sectarians primarily concentrated in ROCOR, Serbia, and the Metropolitanate of Pireaus on the EO sode, and a minority of Copts and Ethiopians on the OO side.

OK, you've probably picked out the two which are the most closely connected, but all the churches I named are claiming the same "Tradition" and there are undeniable differences between them. Purgatory, Indulgences, the Assumption, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility (!) to name just a few of the more important ones.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

Albion said:
OK, you've probably picked out the two which are the most closely connected, but all the churches I named are claiming the same "Tradition" and there are undeniable differences between them. Purgatory, Indulgences, the Assumption, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility (!) to name just a few of the more important ones.

These churches do share a common Tradition however; most things prior to the Great Schism are uncontroversial. The only divergence is after the year 1054. This divergence does not alter the fact that the underlying theology is essentially the same, which is why you see me post in harmony (but not in collusion) with Roman Catholics like RootofJesse and DrBubbaLove to confront heretics. This is also why there exists the Ecumenical Movement.

Variations in liturgy by the way are variations within and not of Tradition; the Oriental Orthodox have four distinct liturgical rites. the Eastern Orthodox have a great range of regional variations on the Byzantine Rite and the huge disparity between the Russian Old Ritualists (Edinovertsy) and the Nikonian liturgy, plus the Western Rite in Antioch and ROCOR, and Catholics have innumerable liturgical rites and regional variations even within the Roman Patriarchate.

tulipbee · Oct 3, 2015

BobRyan said:
There you have it folks!!

That's why Protestantism and sola Scripture exists. The holy spirit has moved His people on. The gospel continues. We praise Jesus and they praise traditions.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

tulipbee said:
That's why Protestantism and sola Scripture exists. The holy spirit has moved His people on. The gospel continues. We praise Jesus and they praise traditions.

Such a remark could only be made by someone who has no experience of the Orthodox liturgy; we are not holy rollers and one will not find praise and worship music, but this does not prevent us from praising the Lord in a dignified manner. However there is more to Christianity than merely praising the Lord.

Standing Up · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
The variance between the EO, OO and RC positions is very slight and does not primarily concern Tradition,

455 and 1054 and 1500's argue against this. Same with the Quartodeciman controversy of 155, 175, and 195. As well baptism by heretics in 225.

But to your comment, so if not Tradition, then which (RC or OO) has the Scriptural primacy position correct?

Now on the subject of Quartodecimianism, which you call "the floating Easter", this was never the unified position of the church but was rather a localized deviation in praxis in places like Smyrna. The Council of Nicea did not impose a new scheme for computing the date of Pascha but rather merely codified an existing system which by 325 was used by most of the Church.

Nicea forced the Roman observance with Constantine as enforcer. But again to the point, the "floating easter" was the observance in Christ's time. So, for those who loudly claim we should follow Tradition, then do so. Forget the fixed easter and observe the following Pascha of Paul's time.

Albion · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
These churches do share a common Tradition however

They claim the same Tradition. The fact that each finds its own doctrines in what is supposedly the same, consistent source, is what demonstates the failing of "Tradition."

The only divergence is after the year 1054.

That hardly seems a defense, since many of the most controversial differences originated after this time but still were justified on the basis of "Tradition" dating back, allegedly, to the Apostles.

This divergence does not alter the fact that the underlying theology is essentially the same

If it were "essentially" the same, you'd be arguing that all versions of Real Presence, both Protestant and Catholic, were "essentially" the same, only slightly different, etc.

Which is why you see me post in harmony (but not in collusion) with Roman Catholics like RootofJesse and DrBubbaLove to confront heretics.

We know why the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics post in support of each other, but it isn't because their churches have identical teachings.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

Standing Up said:
455 and 1054 and 1500's argue against this. Same with the Quartodeciman controversy of 155, 175, and 195. As well baptism by heretics in 225.

But to your comment, so if not Tradition, then which (RC or OO) has the Scriptural primacy position correct?

Nicea forced the Roman observance with Constantine as enforcer. But again to the point, the "floating easter" was the observance in Christ's time. So, for those who loudly claim we should follow Tradition, then do so. Forget the fixed easter and observe the following Pascha of Paul's time.

Christians upon parting ways with Judaism did not, with some exceptions, celebrate the resurrection of our Lord on 14 Nissan, but rather on the Sunday closest to the Passover.

Now Constantine was not the "enforcer" of Nicea as a large number of divergent sects remained in place even after being outlawed by Emperor Theodosius more than 50 years after the death of Constantine; it was not until Theodosius that paganism was surpressed in the Roman Empire. Rather, Nicea resolved differences of opinion between regional churches that subscribed to Orthodoxy, and these churches were not coterminous with the Roman Empire; the Armenians and Ethiopians for example have always regarded Nicea as authoritative, and Constantine had no political power over them.

Lastly, both the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics reject sola scriptura, and both communions enjoy an increasingly warm relationship. Signifigantly, Chalcedon is now a non issue thanks to the joint statement on Christology; consensus on this issue has been restored. The Syriac, Armenian amd Coptic Catholic churches are aside from polity and ecclesiology essentially indistinguishable from their Orthodox counterparts. With the exception that the Syriac Catholics wear Western style vestments (however, the Syro Malankara Catholics wear standard Syriac vestments).

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

Albion said:
They claim the same Tradition. The fact that each finds its own doctrines in what is supposedly the same, consistent source, is what demonstates the failing of "Tradition."

That hardly seems a defense, since many of the most controversial differences originated after this time but still were justified on the basis of "Tradition" dating back, allegedly, to the Apostles.

If it were "essentially" the same, you'd be arguing that all versions of Real Presence, both Protestant and Catholic, were "essentially" the same, only slightly different, etc.

We know why the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics post in support of each other, but it isn't because their churches have identical teachings.

In response to Albion, I maintain that the essential tradition is the same; the only real difference between the apostolic churches in terms of doctrine is an interpretation of tradition. As far as how this relates to the Eucharist, Orthodox, Catholics and Assyrians hold a common view of this sacrament. Protestants as a rule do not, and also as a rule do not accept uncritically any part of the shared heritage which Catholics and Orthodox do accept uncritically, so this is very much a non-point. The exception of course are the upper strata of high churchmen on his own denomination, whose faith would be entirely Orthodox if they did not remain in communion with low churchmen.

I must also ask him not to refer to either the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox as Orthodox without qualification; unqualified, this term should be used to refer to both churches.

Standing Up · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
Christians upon parting ways with Judaism did not, with some exceptions, celebrate the resurrection of our Lord on 14 Nissan, but rather on the Sunday closest to the Passover.

They observed the floating three days/nights of Passover, first day unleavened bread, first fruit. They observed Sunday because of Pentecost's giving of the Spirit. Only later, divorced from their roots, did some conflate the two.

Now Constantine was not the "enforcer" of Nicea

He was the guarantor that they'd follow Rome's custom of observing Sunday after the equinox after the full moon.

"... it [common observance on Sunday] has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent, ..."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html

Lastly, both the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics reject sola scriptura, and both communions enjoy an increasingly warm relationship. Signifigantly, Chalcedon is now a non issue thanks to the joint statement on Christology; consensus on this issue has been restored. The Syriac, Armenian amd Coptic Catholic churches are aside from polity and ecclesiology essentially indistinguishable from their Orthodox counterparts. With the exception that the Syriac Catholics wear Western style vestments (however, the Syro Malankara Catholics wear standard Syriac vestments).

Funny you should mention the Sunday dress as somehow important. Anyway, we all know they do reject scripture alone as the sufficiency of all things salvific. Their increasing communion is moot to the question of what is truth and what is not (salvific). Nonetheless, just like the Pascha issue, if one rejects scripture alone to accept tradition, one should at least observe it as Christ and the apostles did. If not, one might say the Tradition crowd talks, but fails at the walk.

tulipbee · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
Such a remark could only be made by someone who has no experience of the Orthodox liturgy; we are not holy rollers and one will not find praise and worship music, but this does not prevent us from praising the Lord in a dignified manner. However there is more to Christianity than merely praising the Lord.

Holy spirit guiding the inexperienced is much more powerful and far useful than traditions.

Wgw · Oct 3, 2015

tulipbee said:
Holy spirit guiding the inexperienced is much more powerful and far useful than traditions.

No, its rather not, because the Holy Spirit is frequently impersonated by demonic agencies. Hence some of the disturbing things one might see in some Pentecostal churches.

civilwarbuff · Oct 3, 2015

Wgw said:
because the Holy Spirit is frequently impersonated by demonic agencies

And this comes from what scripture.....or is it tradition?

Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Do You Adhear to Sola Scriptura?

Yes

No

Unsure

Other

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Junior Member

Junior Member

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Facilitator

Pray For Brussels!

Facilitator

Pray For Brussels!

Worker of the Hive

Pray For Brussels!

On and on

Facilitator

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

On and on

Worker of the Hive

Pray For Brussels!

Constitutionalist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency