Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Albion]

Well, there is a difference between "having enough" and there being other important things too.

But that assumes a purpose for the Bible books that isn't correct. It's not a primer on all the knowledge in the universe. It's revelation. So what is being revealed? It's how we men may be freed from our sins and find eternal life. That and Christ's instructions on how to live our lives as his disciples is basically it.

The unrecorded information seems like it would be good to have, but those verses which were cited: John 20: 30 and 31, are saying that that is frosting on the cake once we have gotten the point of it all...and that point is in the part that we already have.

This is not a loss; it's actually very good news. What we need in order to have our marching orders in life is right here and we don't need to have a hundred other examples or restatements if we have understood the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible itself denies sola scriptura:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Since the Bible says explicitly that scripture is not the only authoritative source about God, anyone who believes the Bible, cannot logically believe sola scriptura.

 

[Albion]

Please do not try to interprete my intentions outside of what I have explictly stated. This is a prime example of why sola scriptura does not work. It has been thirty minutes and someone has pulled together an incorrect assumption of my writing.

No, when I read Stephanie's post, I knew immediately that she'd gone to the heart of the issue. Don't be offended. The point should not be lost while we turn to bickering over who assumed something about the other person's thinking.

As Stephanie wrote, IF you believe that the Bible and Tradition are the same, you wouldn't need Tradition since we all have the Bible and agree that the Bible is the word of God. It's a simple statement of fact and it's indisputable.

 

[Chandler50]

So, if Peter, who you claim was the first pope, "messed up", how is he infallible? And, if he is not infallible, by what principle is ANY pope infallible?

Papal infallibility is practiced under extremely specific circumstances. It has only been utilized twice in history. Remember, infallible does not mean the Pope cannot sin, it simply means when dealing with issues of faith or morals, he can provide a definitive answer for the church.

Since you adhear to sola scriptura, I would refer you to the book of Matthew. In it, Christ states to Peter alone, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). This gave him the authority to make decisions on issues of faith and morals to the church.

 

[HighwayMan]

But that assumes a purpose for the Bible books that isn't correct. It's not a primer on all the knowledge in the universe. It's revelation. So what is being revealed? It's how we men may be freed from our sins and find eternal life. That and Christ's instructions on how to live our lives as his disciples is basically it.

The unrecorded information seems like it would be good to have, but those verses which were cited: John 20: 30 and 31, are saying that that is frosting on the cake once we have gotten the point of it all...and that point is in the part that we already have.

This is not a loss; it's actually very good news. What we need in order to have our marching orders in life is right here and we don't need to have a hundred other examples or restatements if we have understood the Bible.

I don't agree with this. That would be a heck of a lot of "frosting" if it is going to fill the entire world. Does the language not stand out to you as being very indicative of something important? If your tea is hot, you might say "my tea is pretty hot." But if you say "my tea is hotter than a thousands burning suns put together".....you are either crazy, or there is something very special and extraordinary about your tea.

Even if you were to argue that it is an exaggeration (a difficult position if you identify as a conservative - is anything in the Bible an exaggeration?), it still stands out as a very important verse that to me is one of the most ignored ones of the entire Bible.

 

[Albion]

The Bible itself denies sola scriptura:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Since the Bible says explicitly that scripture is not the only authoritative source about God, anyone who believes the Bible, cannot logically believe sola scriptura.

You'd be correct if your statement above were correct. But it's not. You are making the mistake of thinking that knowing that there is a God is all there is to Christ's message. That is far from correct.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Please do not try to interprete my intentions outside of what I have explictly stated. This is a prime example of why sola scriptura does not work. It has been thirty minutes and someone has pulled together an incorrect assumption of my writing.

This is not a problem holding scripture or tradition higher then one another, it simply does not make sense because they are the same thing. It is like saying that an author's book is more authoritative then the authors spoken words. If the both come from the author, then they hold the same merit.

It is not a question of which one is better, but rather recognizing that they both come from God and hold the same authority.

YOUR title, not mine, "
Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient"

If Scripture and tradition are the same thing, (your words, not mine), then one simply repeats the other. If that is so why do you take issue with Scripture alone? You have said it is insufficient. Psalms says otherwise.
Psalms 138:2
"I will worship toward Your holy temple,
And praise Your name
For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have magnified Your word above all Your name."

 

[Chandler50]

No, when I read Stephanie's post, I knew immediately that she'd gone to the heart of the issue. Don't be offended. The point should not be lost while we turn to bickering over who assumed something about the other person's thinking.

As Stephanie wrote, IF you believe that the Bible and Tradition are the same, you wouldn't need Tradition since we all have the Bible and agree that the Bible is the word of God. It's a simple statement of fact and it's indisputable.

They are not the same. They come from the same source, the same authority. That is a big difference. Obviously, speaking and writing are two different methods, but if I utilize both, then they hold the same authority.

Besides, with your logic I could make the same assertion that you do not need the Bible because we have tradition.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Tradition is not an alternative to the Bible, they are the same thing (word of God), just in different formats.

They are not the same. They come from the same source, the same authority. That is a big difference. Obviously, speaking and writing are two different methods, but if I utilize both, then they hold the same authority.

Besides, with your logic I could make the same assertion that you do not need the Bible because we have tradition.

So, which side of your mouth is speaking what you believe? You have stated both to be true, but they are mutually exclusive.

 

[StephanieSomer]

The reality is that you place tradition above Scripture. Of that I am quite sure. Maybe you forgot that I mentioned before that I was raised Catholic. I am very well aware of what is taught, in classroom, from the pulpit, and by traditional practices.

edited P.S. Had you placed this thread in OBOB I would never have responded. I've already been made cognizant that non-Catholics aren't welcome there. Whenever I have posted there anything which any particular Catholic opposed, I was treated to the rejoinder, "Why are non-Catholics even posting here? This is OUR forum." Or something just as divisive. So, I never post in there anymore. If you didn't want opposition, you should have kept it in there.

 

[Chandler50]

YOUR title, not mine, "
Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient"

If Scripture and tradition are the same thing, (your words, not mine), then one simply repeats the other. If that is so why do you take issue with Scripture alone? You have said it is insufficient. Psalms says otherwise.
Psalms 138:2
"I will worship toward Your holy temple,
And praise Your name
For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have magnified Your word above all Your name."

Sola scriptura is insuffient because it does not contain everything that Christ taught. John explictly states this at the end of his book.

By the way, the Hebrew word for 'word' that you just quoted in Psalm is imrāṯeḵā. This literally is translated to 'your spoken word', not written word.

 

[Albion]

I don't agree with this.

Well, that's life. All I can do is explain the verse to you.

That would be a heck of a lot of "frosting" if it is going to fill the entire world. Does the language not stand out to you as being very indicative of something important?

I've explained what's important about it. We have already all that we need! That should be a reassuring message.

By the way, the "fill the entire world" phraseology is a way of saying "You could be given endless recountings of Jesus' message, ten times ten repetitions of it, and be told about his importance as many times as you can imagine...but it isn't going to change, so if you who have received the Gospel understand it and accept Christ as Lord and Savior, there's nothing more that you need in order to believe."

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura is insuffient because it does not contain everything that Christ taught. John explictly states this at the end of his book.

No it doesn't! It says that there's nothing more that you need other than the Gospel.

 

[Chandler50]

The reality is that you place tradition above Scripture. Of that I am quite sure. Maybe you forgot that I mentioned before that I was raised Catholic. I am very well aware of what is taught, in classroom, from the pulpit, and by traditional practices.

Nope, tradition and scripture are equal. It is clearly stated in the CCC paragraph 80. Again, please stop trying to assert lies of what I believe. Not once have I stated that I place tradition above scripture. I have made it very clear that scripture and tradition are equal because they are both of God. To state that I place tradition higher than scripture based off your upbringing in the church is crass.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Nope, tradition and scripture are equal. It is clearly stated in the CCC paragraph 80. Again, please stop trying to assert lies of what I believe. Not once have I stated that I place tradition above scripture. I have made it very clear that scripture and tradition are equal because they are both of God. To state that I place tradition higher than scripture based off your upbringing in the church is crass.

To be fair, what you just cited is Church Tradition. You used it to prove it.

 

[Albion]

They are not the same.

I'm glad you reversed yourself on this. Now we can discuss the matter of Scripture and Tradition without that unfortunate hurdle.

They come from the same source, the same authority.

That's the theory all right. I think this was said before. However, they don't "come from the same source" just because someone who would like us to think that Tradition is equal to the Bible says so.

Obviously, speaking and writing are two different methods, but if I utilize both, then they hold the same authority.

Sure, but that doesn't describe "Tradition." It is not just the Bible on cassette tape. If it were, you'd be agreeing with me and Stephanie that you would be satisfied with the Bible Alone.

Besides, with your logic I could make the same assertion that you do not need the Bible because we have tradition.

Except that the Bible is not in question. We all consider the Bible to be divine revelation. Every church agrees that it's divine revelation. The Early Church Fathers and the Nicene Creed cited the Scriptures as their evidence.
'
None of that applies to the theory of Tradition. And the question of the OP is not "Should the Bible be believed?" but whether it needs something to be added to it. So far, there's no reason to think that the Bible isn't sufficient in itself for God's purposes in giving revelation to Man.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Sola scriptura is insuffient because it does not contain everything that Christ taught. John explictly states this at the end of his book.

By the way, the Hebrew word for 'word' that you just quoted in Psalm is imrāṯeḵā. This literally is translated to 'your spoken word', not written word.

What John says is there is more Jesus said and did. We have no reason to believe it was additional theology or practice. It's entirely likely it was more of the same types of teachings and miracles.

 

[Chandler50]

No it doesn't! It says that there's nothing more that you need other than the Gospel.

John 21:25
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Please show me where John says that we only need the written gospel. Because I read that Christ did many other things and that writing everything down would not be feasible.

 

[Poor Beggar]

The reality is that you place tradition above Scripture. Of that I am quite sure. Maybe you forgot that I mentioned before that I was raised Catholic. I am very well aware of what is taught, in classroom, from the pulpit, and by traditional practices.

edited P.S. Had you placed this thread in OBOB I would never have responded. I've already been made cognizant that non-Catholics aren't welcome there. Whenever I have posted there anything which any particular Catholic opposed, I was treated to the rejoinder, "Why are non-Catholics even posting here? This is OUR forum." Or something just as divisive. So, I never post in there anymore. If you didn't want opposition, you should have kept it in there.

Oh, I didn't realize we aren't supposed to be here either! Oops. Sorry, forum.

 

[HighwayMan]

Well, that's life. All I can do is explain the verse to you.


I've explained what's important about it. We have already all that we need! That should be a reassuring message.

By the way, the "fill the entire world" phraseology is a way of saying "You could be given endless recountings of Jesus' message, ten times ten repetitions of it, and be told about his importance as many times as you can imagine...but it isn't going to change, so if you who have received the Gospel understand it and accept Christ as Lord and Savior, there's nothing more that you need in order to believe."

With all due respect, I disagree even more. The verse does not say "Jesus MIGHT have done many other things as well..." it says Jesus "DID many other things as well." That is a huge difference - the verse is not talking hypotheticals, it is talking the actual reality. So by your explanation, we are to assume that Jesus, the Son of God, did a huge amount of things in this life, extremely huge if we are to believe even a portion of this verse....that apparently were not really important, or were the exact same thing over and over again that doesn't present something new to what's already been written down. "Frosting," as you say. Which sounds very much like the Son of God came to Earth and spent an untold amount of time more or less wasting him time, doing a massive amount of things not important enough to be written down. None of that sounds true to me.