Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Percivale · Nov 1, 2015

I agree with the OP, tradition as well as Scripture is valuable, neither is meant to stand alone. But I deny that the Roman Catholic church has passed on that tradition perfectly. Perhaps a better source for learning the tradition of the church is by reading the early church fathers.
The RCC contradicts the Bible by requiring celibacy for priests, when Paul required monogamous marriage for bishops and elders.

thecolorsblend · Nov 1, 2015

Percivale said:
I agree with the OP, tradition as well as Scripture is valuable, neither is meant to stand alone. But I deny that the Roman Catholic church has passed on that tradition perfectly. Perhaps a better source for learning the tradition of the church is by reading the early church fathers.

Where does the Church diverge from the Church Fathers? All or most of Catholicism can be found in the Church Fathers. It might be a primitive form but it's there.

Percivale said:
The RCC contradicts the Bible by requiring celibacy for priests, when Paul required monogamous marriage for bishops and elders.

That's a disciplinary thing in the Roman Rite as opposed to a universal teaching.

Wgw · Nov 1, 2015

Standing Up said:
I've no problem with tradition. I find it very interesting and useful.

To clarify, SS is the idea that scripture alone is the norm (rule of faith) to determine doctrines and practices salvific. We believe the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT) wrote all necessary things down for subsequent generations (this can be and has been shown numerous times in this thread). We will not stand on tradition or Tradition for Christian doctrine.

With that in mind, can we find SS operating in tradition? The answer is yes. Josephus defines the same principle of a valid prophetic line for their 22 books of the OT. Did Josephus/tradition invent this idea? No. It is found in OT, 1 Maccabees, and repeated in NT via Christ, Peter, Paul, and Heb. 1:1.

So, we start with Scripture and find doctrine/practice in tradition.

Except Josephus is not a part of Holy Tradition. His opinion as an enemy of Christ is essentially irrelevant. There are some Patristic voices you could cite in line with Calvinist consensus patrum, however, this would not represent a proper use of Tradition, which requires consistency and continuity. However such an approach would be preferrable to citing Josephus, which is simply distressing; no non-Christian should ever be allowed to influence the praxis of the Christian church (pre-Christian figures in the Bible, such as Abraham, are saints in the Orthodox Church and so constitute a special case).

One interesting point can be raised; in addition to Esther, there is no reason why Job should be included under the rule you propose. There is no evidence to suggest Job was a historical person; there are compelling reasons to regard this as a typically West Semitic morality fable contoured to support the religion of Israel. Would I advocate excluding it? No, because of the high theology it contains, but your approach would rule it out if used objectively.

Wgw · Nov 1, 2015

Standing Up said:
Here's an example of confusion as to what SS is. In what way is using instruments or not a "thing salvific"?

The article relates to the so-called Regulative Principle; as a rule Calvinists who really went overboard on this tended to rule out all hymns except a capella Psalmody, thus unwittingly reinventing the Cathedral Typikon or sung office of the Byzantine Rite which was used in the Hagia Sophia until the Turkish invasion (when the Sabaite Typikon, used in monasteries and small parishes, became standard in all surviving cathedrals).

Wgw · Nov 1, 2015

Percivale said:
I agree with the OP, tradition as well as Scripture is valuable, neither is meant to stand alone. But I deny that the Roman Catholic church has passed on that tradition perfectly. Perhaps a better source for learning the tradition of the church is by reading the early church fathers.
The RCC contradicts the Bible by requiring celibacy for priests, when Paul required monogamous marriage for bishops and elders.

Actually no, St. Paul merely prohibited polygamous clergy. However the Eastern Catholics and Anglican Ordinariates have married clergy.

Standing Up · Nov 2, 2015

Wgw said:
Except Josephus is not a part of Holy Tradition.

He's part of tradition. Surely you know the difference. tradition is historic information. Holy Tradition is stuff that various denominations define in different ways to suit their different doctrines.

His opinion as an enemy of Christ is essentially irrelevant. There are some Patristic voices you could cite in line with Calvinist consensus patrum, however, this would not represent a proper use of Tradition, which requires consistency and continuity. However such an approach would be preferrable to citing Josephus, which is simply distressing; no non-Christian should ever be allowed to influence the praxis of the Christian church (pre-Christian figures in the Bible, such as Abraham, are saints in the Orthodox Church and so constitute a special case).

You're simply ignoring all of the surrounding evidence about which Josephus merely relates. Again, Peter Paul Christ Hebrews 1:1 tell us the same thing.

One interesting point can be raised; in addition to Esther, there is no reason why Job should be included under the rule you propose. There is no evidence to suggest Job was a historical person; there are compelling reasons to regard this as a typically West Semitic morality fable contoured to support the religion of Israel. Would I advocate excluding it? No, because of the high theology it contains, but your approach would rule it out if used objectively.

Some folks also reject Jonah and the Genesis account as non historic events.

Again the determination wasn't that the OT book was written necessarily by a prophet, but during a valid lineage of prophetic voice of God on earth. Christ says, law, prophet, psalms (Lk 24:44). Besides Ezekiel and James confirm Job's canonicity.

Esther was written during the time of Ezra/Nehemiah.

Albion · Nov 2, 2015

thecolorsblend said:
Hey, no problem, I forgive you.

....meaning also that you acknowledge your error--the one I was sorry to have to point out to you. You're welcome.

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
Because he provides the same historic context as Peter, Paul, Christ, and 1 Maccabees do in terms of helping us understand what they and us consider divine (God breathed).

Historical context, maybe, in terms of historic novels. Some truth, lots of embellishment.

For the OT, it was the prophet (valid prophetic lineage). For the NT, it was the apostles (or associates). None of them considered information as divine apart from those two contexts. So, 1 Macc or Didache may be of interest, no one should build a doctrine on uninspired information, else you open the door to LDS, JW, Magisterium's etc.

We don't build doctrine based on 1 Maccabees. Doctrine is built from Scripture, of which 1 Maccabees is a part. The same way the Trinity comes from many places in Scripture, so does any other doctrine.

Why do you suppose Christ renamed James and John son of Thunder? (Hint: it had nothing to do with their temperament.)

It was because they had big mouths, really.

Standing Up · Nov 2, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
It was because they had big mouths, really.

Christ renamed James and John because they had big mouths? They were renamed sons of thunder. They were the first and last apostles to die, during which NT was written. Thunder is a metaphor for voice of God. Likewise the OT was written during times of the prophets (Heb 1:1).

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
Christ renamed James and John because they had big mouths? They were renamed sons of thunder. They were the first and last apostles to die, during which NT was written. Thunder is a metaphor for voice of God. Likewise the OT was written during times of the prophets (Heb 1:1).

So when they asked Jesus to let them sit on His right and on His left, they weren't shooting off their mouths? When they wanted to call down fire on some who weren't part of their group, they weren't being big mouths? By the way, all the apostles had flaws, and some think Jesus named them this to chide them for their flaws. But he didn't rename them, it was a nickname. Peter was renamed. There's a distinction. Also, the Torah was not authored during the time of the prophets.

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
That's nice. For the rest of us, we prefer like Paul said, built on foundation of prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20) or like Peter said (2 Peter 3:2).

The two thirds of us don't agree with your interpretation of that. The foundation of the prophets and apostles is fine, but what, do you think, is built on that foundation??? In other words, there's more to it that the prophets and apostles.

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
Josephus relates the same standard that 1 Macc does; in the height of irony which you accept as inspired, when it says it is not inspired.

So it fits your criteria, but not ours, so that's your standard. Thanks for revealing that.

Paul, Peter, Christ outline what is considered divine for Christians based on the standards of prophets and apostles.

No, the foundation of the prophets and apostles, something completely different.

Don't you find it odd that various religions have all sorts of "inspired" books, but how do you know one is and one isn't? What standard does OO have?

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Rick Otto said:
Because professing Christianity doesn't necessarily make one smarter, or correct.
The very question portrays arrogance in ignorance.
That is why Sola Scripture doesn't respect persons & their pedigree above truth itself.
Apostolic succession is supposed to be the succession of truth, not a franchise on truth.

No, we put Christ above everything. Apostolic succession proves that.

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Jordan Kurecki said:
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for elevation their tradition above the word of God.
The Pharisees and the Catholics have a whole lot in common.

That's your misunderstanding. Our Tradition is the Word of God, it's not elevated above the Word of God. Nobody could do that.

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Albion said:
Again, that statement shows a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "Sacred Tradition" and its role in the church. Simply put, Sacred Tradition is NOT traditions.

No, really???

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
I've no problem with tradition. I find it very interesting and useful.

To clarify, SS is the idea that scripture alone is the norm (rule of faith) to determine doctrines and practices salvific. We believe the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT) wrote all necessary things down for subsequent generations (this can be and has been shown numerous times in this thread). We will not stand on tradition or Tradition for Christian doctrine.

With that in mind, can we find SS operating in tradition? The answer is yes. Josephus defines the same principle of a valid prophetic line for their 22 books of the OT. Did Josephus/tradition invent this idea? No. It is found in OT, 1 Maccabees, and repeated in NT via Christ, Peter, Paul, and Heb. 1:1.

So, we start with Scripture and find doctrine/practice in tradition.

The Catholic way.

Root of Jesse · Nov 2, 2015

Percivale said:
I agree with the OP, tradition as well as Scripture is valuable, neither is meant to stand alone. But I deny that the Roman Catholic church has passed on that tradition perfectly. Perhaps a better source for learning the tradition of the church is by reading the early church fathers.
The RCC contradicts the Bible by requiring celibacy for priests, when Paul required monogamous marriage for bishops and elders.

Paul didn't require it. In fact, he suggested that people not get married unless they really, really felt the need.
The celibacy of priests is a practice, not Tradition. It could be lifted any time. Celibacy is a gift of the person to God, a sacrifice.

Rick Otto · Nov 2, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
No, we put Christ above everything. Apostolic succession proves that.

Your definitions are all over the place, so whatever you say can mean whatever you want it to.
I would envy that if I didn't value integrity.

Standing Up · Nov 2, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
That's your misunderstanding. Our Tradition is the Word of God, it's not elevated above the Word of God. Nobody could do that.

Just to clarify what RC means "word of God" is to them what was written and spoken. RC/EO/P all differ on those things. So, while it's nice sentiment, it's not necessarily true and certainly isn't provable.

Standing Up · Nov 2, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
The two thirds of us don't agree with your interpretation of that. The foundation of the prophets and apostles is fine, but what, do you think, is built on that foundation??? In other words, there's more to it that the prophets and apostles.

Built on foundation of prophets and apostles. The problem is denonations, including RC, skewed from the "it is written" into whatever their Tradition became.

Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Do You Adhear to Sola Scriptura?

Yes

No

Unsure

Other

Sam

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

On and on

Facilitator

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

On and on

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

The Dude Abides

On and on

On and on

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency