Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Standing Up]

Indeed it does but not because of the Scriptural passages you cited. Those passages warn against modifying those specific texts. They say nothing about editing the entire Scriptural canon.

They do so in the sense of defining, like Hebrews 1:1 or Christ with law and prophet or Paul with prophets and apostles, what God breathed entails.

In order to do so, they would logically need to define what the Scriptural canon is. Clearly those passages make no attempt to do so. And that is ultimately for the good since the literal application you supply for the OT passage would invalidate the canonicity of the entire NT.

Again, there are passages that show the shift from prophets to apostles, from Moses to John the Baptist and then to James and John sons of thunder.

The Catholic Church can and the Catholic Church does. Invoking infallibility does not somehow categorize, say, a papal encyclical as Sacred Scripture. Papal encyclicals are papal encyclicals. Sacred Scripture is Sacred Scripture. The two are not the same thing.

It's only "funny" if you don't understand what Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are. All due respect but I'm not sure you recognize the distinction between the two. A core Catholic teaching is that God speaks to the world through the Catholic Church and Holy Scripture rather than just Holy Scripture alone. This, however, does not mean the Church considers herself at liberty to classify, say, Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae encyclical as Scripture.

The core teaching of RC is God's word is written (bible) and oral (Tradition) with the Magisterium as sole interpreter thereof. In the sense of redefining the term "canon" from written only to include Tradition, there is no sense that RC can abide Deut and Rev instruction, even if it more clearly included what we know as all the OT/NT (66 books).

 

[Standing Up]

On the chance that that post was intended to be serious, there can only be one Pope at a time, just like there's only one President at a time.

Not exactly. There have been anti-popes and others who claim Peter's so-called succession "rights".

 

[Albion]

Not exactly. There have been anti-popes and others who claim Peter's so-called succession "rights".

They are only claimants. There is but one official pope at a time. Even in the case of the so-called Western Schism of the 14th and 15th centuries when there were two different and competing lines spanning a couple of generations, the church did finally decree that one was legit and the others, well, merely "anti-popes."

 

[lesliedellow]

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

Catholic answer: When the Pope says so.

And why should we listen to his pronouncements? - Because the Pope says so.

As one theologian has rightly said, the Catholic position amounts to Eclessia alone. Whatever the Catholic hierarchy says, is treated as if it came from the mouth of God himself.

It would be very handy if I could make myself the sole interpretor of British law. My next step would be to rob the Bank of England, and then pronounce myself innocent.

 

[tulipbee]

Sorry the Catholics got refuted.

Believed, can, could, might, should, may - ain't working for the Protestants.

Apostolic succession can't be broken if it was never created. It's more than broken. Downright lies created by Common men.

...There is no 'proof' that Peter was the 'first Pope.... https://www.quora.com/Is-there-proof-that-Peter-was-the-first-Pope?share=1

What it does not show is that Linus was to be the leader of those in Rome or ordained by Peter.... The lack of emphasis/preeminence in Paul's writings would seem to suggest that Linus could not have been the one to become the "bishop of Rome" and the successor of Peter and Paul in 67 A.D.... There is simply no direct, nor indirect, reference to Linus in any of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. Linus, according to his complete omission from the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" (circa 100-160 A.D.) simply did not have a major leadership role in the Church.... http://www.cogwriter.com/linus.htm

...
* At least 4 Popes are admitted to have had illegitimate children.

* At least 5 Popes were sons of priests, including at least one (maybe two) Popes who were sons of other Popes! (Some of these priests may have been married but left their families to become priests.)

* At least 6 Popes were excommunicated or condemned as heretics, including one Pope who was excommunicated twice and two Popes who excommunicated one another!...

... There is no passage, here or elsewhere, which calls Peter the Chief Shepherd or which states He has authority over the other apostles.... ... Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.... There Is No Valid Scriptural Proof that Peter Ever Acted as Pope.... No Men Today Can Be Successors of Apostles.... Successors to Apostles Are Not Needed Today.... The True Church Cannot Be Identified by Tracing
a Succession of Bishops.... http://gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php

...If Peter was the first pope then:

Why was Paul was equal to Peter: "Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody." 2 Corinthians 12:11
Why was Peter was not an infallible guide in faith and morals: "But when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Galatians 2:11
... Peter was not a Pope!... Proof texts of Peter being the first Pope REFUTED!... http://www.bible.ca/catholic-infallibility.htm

... In other words.. you should not have a Pope... At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere... http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm


... Peter Was Not The First Pope! Conclusive Historical Evidence Revealed and Matthew 16:18-19 Contextual Evidence... http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-was-not-first-pope-conclusive.html?m=1


... Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession).... Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).... http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think the problem is that this thread from the OP intermixes authorities in the church with scriptural authority. Most all churches have authorities; teachers, deacons, pastors, bishops. When I write scripture is supreme, I mean over other authorities in the church. That means as Acts17:11 says, to test everything that anyone says in the church against scripture.

The supremacy of scripture over authorities in the church does not imply that other methods may be used to generate spiritual truths and that scripture is just the highest. That is Prima scriptura. So in regards to spiritual truths sufficient to salvation, scripture alone is recognized.

In regard to traditions, Martin Luther did place value on traditions in the practice of faith and the understanding of scripture, just not to extend scripture.

Catholics believe Scripture is supreme-along with Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium.

 

[Root of Jesse]

They do so in the sense of defining, like Hebrews 1:1 or Christ with law and prophet or Paul with prophets and apostles, what God breathed entails.



Again, there are passages that show the shift from prophets to apostles, from Moses to John the Baptist and then to James and John sons of thunder.


The core teaching of RC is God's word is written (bible) and oral (Tradition) with the Magisterium as sole interpreter thereof. In the sense of redefining the term "canon" from written only to include Tradition, there is no sense that RC can abide Deut and Rev instruction, even if it more clearly included what we know as all the OT/NT (66 books).

Actually, the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Catholic answer: When the Pope says so.

And why should we listen to his pronouncements? - Because the Pope says so.

As one theologian has rightly said, the Catholic position amounts to Eclessia alone. Whatever the Catholic hierarchy says, is treated as if it came from the mouth of God himself.

It would be very handy if I could make myself the sole interpretor of British law. My next step would be to rob the Bank of England, and then pronounce myself innocent.

Of course, leaving out the Holy Spirit totally...

 

[Standing Up]

Catholics believe Scripture is supreme-along with Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium.

Not supreme, but equal. RC members are taught scripture and Tradition are equal.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sorry the Catholics got refuted.

Believed, can, could, might, should, may - ain't working for the Protestants.

Apostolic succession can't be broken if it was never created. It's more than broken. Downright lies created by Common men.

...There is no 'proof' that Peter was the 'first Pope.... https://www.quora.com/Is-there-proof-that-Peter-was-the-first-Pope?share=1

What it does not show is that Linus was to be the leader of those in Rome or ordained by Peter.... The lack of emphasis/preeminence in Paul's writings would seem to suggest that Linus could not have been the one to become the "bishop of Rome" and the successor of Peter and Paul in 67 A.D.... There is simply no direct, nor indirect, reference to Linus in any of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. Linus, according to his complete omission from the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" (circa 100-160 A.D.) simply did not have a major leadership role in the Church.... http://www.cogwriter.com/linus.htm

...
* At least 4 Popes are admitted to have had illegitimate children.

* At least 5 Popes were sons of priests, including at least one (maybe two) Popes who were sons of other Popes! (Some of these priests may have been married but left their families to become priests.)

* At least 6 Popes were excommunicated or condemned as heretics, including one Pope who was excommunicated twice and two Popes who excommunicated one another!...

... There is no passage, here or elsewhere, which calls Peter the Chief Shepherd or which states He has authority over the other apostles.... ... Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.... There Is No Valid Scriptural Proof that Peter Ever Acted as Pope.... No Men Today Can Be Successors of Apostles.... Successors to Apostles Are Not Needed Today.... The True Church Cannot Be Identified by Tracing
a Succession of Bishops.... http://gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php

...If Peter was the first pope then:

Why was Paul was equal to Peter: "Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody." 2 Corinthians 12:11
Why was Peter was not an infallible guide in faith and morals: "But when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Galatians 2:11
... Peter was not a Pope!... Proof texts of Peter being the first Pope REFUTED!... http://www.bible.ca/catholic-infallibility.htm

... In other words.. you should not have a Pope... At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere... http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm


... Peter Was Not The First Pope! Conclusive Historical Evidence Revealed and Matthew 16:18-19 Contextual Evidence... http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-was-not-first-pope-conclusive.html?m=1


... Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession).... Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).... http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html

So much misinformation here. Why would it follow that Linus was ordained by Peter? A pope is not chosen until the current pope is dead.
Why would it matter that there were popes who are or have illegitimate children? You're spouting heresy. The Sacraments are valid because they were instituted by Christ, just as the Pope is valid because he was instituted by Christ. Every one of the apostles was a sinner, big time. So what you're wanting, I guess, is a sinless Church? Not going to happen. We on earth are the wheat being sifted.
By the way, all the apostles were equal, all the Bishops are equal. One is still the head of the lot of them, and chosen by...the Holy Spirit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not supreme, but equal. RC members are taught scripture and Tradition are equal.

Right. Are you saying that three equal things cannot be supreme together? Like the Trinity?

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter.

No, RC teaches what was handed down. And makes the same claim as everyone else. We are helped by the Spirit.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

EO/OO/P say they too teach what was handed down. And helped by the Spirit.

The difference is some of us will test what was supposedly handed down; and by/with the help of the Spirit we will look in scripture to see if it is so.

 

[Standing Up]

Right. Are you saying that three equal things cannot be supreme together? Like the Trinity?

RC says Tradition and Scripture are equal. RC believes only its Magisterium can interpret those two things. RC does not have a three-legged stool, but a two-footed ladder whose rungs are defined by its Magisterium.

 

[Root of Jesse]

RC says Tradition and Scripture are equal. RC believes only its Magisterium can interpret those two things. RC does not have a three-legged stool, but a two-footed ladder whose rungs are defined by its Magisterium.

Wrong answer, Charlie Brown.

 

[RC1970]

Catholic answer: When the Pope says so.

And why should we listen to his pronouncements? - Because the Pope says so.

As one theologian has rightly said, the Catholic position amounts to Eclessia alone. Whatever the Catholic hierarchy says, is treated as if it came from the mouth of God himself.

It would be very handy if I could make myself the sole interpretor of British law. My next step would be to rob the Bank of England, and then pronounce myself innocent.

Due to the Roman church's egregious doctrine of infallibility she suffers from dogmatic hemophilia, by which, if you scratch her once, she bleeds to death.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Due to the Roman church's egregious doctrine of infallibility she suffers from dogmatic hemophilia, by which, if you scratch her once, she bleeds to death.

She might bleed, but she will never bleed to death. Jesus promised that.

 

[thecolorsblend]

They do so in the sense of defining

No. They don't.

The core teaching of RC is God's word is written (bible) and oral (Tradition) with the Magisterium as sole interpreter thereof.

Now you're just making stuff up.

In the sense of redefining the term "canon" from written only to include Tradition,

A canonized collection of writings didn't exist for centuries! If the Magisterium never existed, governing the Church would've been impossible.

there is no sense that RC can abide Deut and Rev instruction, even if it more clearly included what we know as all the OT/NT (66 books).

"Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality."
- St. Ignatius to the Magnesians

Ignatius doesn't appeal here to Scriptural authority or even doctrinal purity. Both of those things are assumed in his remarks concerning the hierarchy of the Church. He was a "first generation Christian". He was trained and instructed by no less than St. John the Apostle himself.

So who should I trust? Someone who was there basically from the start and was instructed by an apostle? Or some armchair Protestant theologian with an incomplete Bible?

 

[tulipbee]

Of course, leaving out the Holy Spirit totally...

The holy spirit moves the church

 

[lesliedellow]

The holy spirit moves the church

Just to add to that, the Church is not identical with a bunch of cardinals living in Rome.

 

[Standing Up]

Now you're just making stuff up.

It's hardly worth talking to folks who don't know much about their own religion.

The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

In any event, the bible is sufficient for anyone to know all things salvific.