Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[BobRyan]

The two key examples in the NT of the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine seen "in practice" are these;

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

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.

The "claim" has been made that certain traditions might pass this test - which ones?

 

[Wgw]

The two key examples in the NT of the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine seen "in practice" are these;

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

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.

The "claim" has been made that certain traditions might pass this test - which ones?

Among Orthodox traditions that are frequently accused of being unscriptural, one can in fact find clear Biblical support for essentially all of them, but in particular, I feel inclined to mention baptism in the Trinitarian formula, the Eucharist, ordination (see Acts; the ordination of Matthias and the seven deacons), unction (see James), the use of incense (the three magi bringing our lord frankincense, the Hebrew temple worship described in the Pentateuch), chrismation (see myrhh, annoinment, et cetera), the divine liturgy (itself composed of scriptural references), iconography (the angels on the Ark), and several others, which I might enumerate if I had an arbitrary amount of time.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The two key examples in the NT of the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine seen "in practice" are these;

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

If that's Sola Scriptura (A) they would not have accepted the NT as "new Scripture" and (B) they were still relying on oral teachings to compare against the Old Testament Scriptures to which they had access.

The "claim" has been made that certain traditions might pass this test - which ones?

Probably not the man-made inventions such as soul sleep.

 

[EinsteinsGirl]

JESUS is the Word of God. Having an intimate relationship with Him and hearing His voice is more important than reading scripture.

`You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!`........ John 5:39

But scripture is important.

Problem is too many Christians view it through carnal eyes and minds so they don`t really understand it. You won`t understand it without illumination from GOD. That`s why everyone fights about what it means.
No relationship with Holy Spirit means no illumination of the word..........

 

[SarahsKnight]

JESUS is the Word of God. Having an intimate relationship with Him and hearing His voice is more important than reading scripture.

`You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!`........ John 5:39

But scripture is important.

Problem is too many Christians view it through carnal eyes and minds so they don`t really understand it. You won`t understand it without illumination from GOD. That`s why everyone fights about what it means.
No relationship with Holy Spirit means no illumination of the word..........

Well said, EinsteinsGirl. Indeed I would say it does take illumination from the Holy Spirit to discern Scriptural subjects, at least the ones (and they are many) that are less than perfectly straightforward by having a "difficulty" verse here or there that seem to contradict them. The problem is, we will all continue to argue and fight over them because hardly anyone will dare think they are wrong on an issue because of the Holy Spirit not illuminating it to them due to their stubbornness. And of course, how willing would any of us be to take heed and listen to someone who claims they have the Spirit in their corner on a teaching the first person disagrees with? Even if the second person exhibited the gentle fruit of the Spirit when trying to teach their side to the first? Everyone's too afraid to be wrong about anything, even if the Biblical issue is clearly peripheral and has nothing to do with the very basic of the faith that is believing in Christ?

Still, I think your words were wise.

I adhere basically to Sola Scriptura, too, like Bob Ryan, but nevertheless it by far isn't going to guarantee an infallible record for me in interpreting Scripture. We might agree on not relying on traditional word of mouth passed down to fill in the necessary blanks for us, but nevertheless when we get down to reading Scripture for ourselves, we're bound to differ on how we interpret a subject, verse, or passage at some point. I guess you just have to be as honest as you can in letting the Spirit guide you, even if it means dispensing with preconceived notions we were comfortable with hearing in church all our lives. And pray for that sincerity in seeking (as we are but fallible humans, all) as you let the Spirit guide you as well.

 

[tulipbee]

Sola scriptura makes the bible infallibile and inerrant.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sola scriptura makes the bible infallibile and inerrant.

No it doesn't. God makes the Bible infallible and inerrant.

 

[tulipbee]

No it doesn't. God makes the Bible infallible and inerrant.

Same thing

 

[Root of Jesse]

Same thing

Not really.

 

[tulipbee]

Not really.

The bible came right out of God's breath. He breathed it. The writers were in deep sleep and the hands just writes like an invisible force moving the hands. The writers didn't write on thier own at all. It's all God breathed.

 

[Albion]

Well, being inspired doesn't mean that they were sleepwalking (or sleepwriting or dreaming) or had their hands moved by God like a marionette when these holy men recorded that which they did.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The bible came right out of God's breath. He breathed it. The writers were in deep sleep and the hands just writes like an invisible force moving the hands. The writers didn't write on thier own at all. It's all God breathed.

Nothing you've said here says anything about Sola Scriptura. And as someone else says, it's not as if the writers were sleep walking. Inspiration doesn't really work like that.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Nothing you've said here says anything about Sola Scriptura. And as someone else says, it's not as if the writers were sleep walking. Inspiration doesn't really work like that.

I must say that watching people argue in support of Sola Scriptura in this thread has conversely shown me how weak a doctrine it truly is.

 

[Albion]

I must say that watching people argue in support of Sola Scriptura in this thread has conversely shown me how weak a doctrine it truly is.

How so? We've had to correct you guys repeatedly for denouncing Sola Scriptura without seeming to know what the term is all about.

Of course you're likely to find a misunderstanding unconvincing. That's what happens when people approach any concept armed with erroneous information, don't you know?

 

[Root of Jesse]

How so? We've had to correct you guys repeatedly for denouncing Sola Scriptura without seeming to know what the term is all about.

Of course you're likely to find a misunderstanding unconvincing. That's what happens when people approach any concept armed with erroneous information, don't you know?

I have yet to see one person tell us what it is and what it isn't, and have ever other Protestant agree. I've not seen anything doctrinal, which is what we want. It's like different brands of computers. They're all "Windows", but different vendors have different flavors of "Windows". So you can say it's this, and someone else can say it's that. I've even seen one definition which is completely Catholic, as far as it goes. At least we Catholics can fall back on the Catechism...

 

[tulipbee]

Nothing you've said here says anything about Sola Scriptura. And as someone else says, it's not as if the writers were sleep walking. Inspiration doesn't really work like that.

God breathe is God breathe and bible in my hand is solo

 

[Root of Jesse]

God breathe is God breathe and bible in my hand is solo

Why would you limit God's word to what's printed in the Bible?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why would you limit God's word to what's printed in the Bible?

A good question, indeed. It seems that the Christian Church has made that determination for us, has it not? When the canon of scripture was stipulated (which is another discussion entirely) it excluded all but the Bible as being the Word of God. However, there always have been those who have chosen to incorporate other writings such as the Book of Mormon, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the Gospel of Thomas, etc., etc., etc. with the Bible as being the Word of God. I doubt you are in that category, but I could be mistaken.

 

[Wgw]

A good question, indeed. It seems that the Christian Church has made that determination for us, has it not? When the canon of scripture was stipulated (which is another discussion entirely) it excluded all but the Bible as being the Word of God. However, there always have been those who have chosen to incorporate other writings such as the Book of Mormon, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the Gospel of Thomas, etc., etc., etc. with the Bible as being the Word of God. I doubt you are in that category, but I could be mistaken.

According to John 1:1, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. We therefore value the Bible on the basis to which it is an icon of the Word, as opposed to being the incarnate Word per se.

 

[bbbbbbb]

According to John 1:1, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. We therefore value the Bible on the basis to which it is an icon of the Word, as opposed to being the incarnate Word per se.

Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that any Christian would embrace other writings as being of the same level of significance as the Bible.