Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[tulipbee]

Nope, ST is more ancient, closer to the source (Jesus), and therefore superior.

The holy spirit's last actions are superior. He is not dead

 

[Root of Jesse]

True enough (CCC 85).
Your group RC believes Tradition and Scripture source to the same object God. (CCC 80) The point was RC does not think scripture is sufficient for all things salvific. RC does not think scripture is "supreme".

No, that's not true. God's word is supreme. We believe Scripture and Tradition are "God's Word", and we believe all of it is supreme. We don't believe the Bible is all of God's word.

 

[Albion]

I think the Holy Spirit is also required to internalize the wisdom found in the Bible and to carry out the Spiritual discipline it reccomends. Having access to church tradition can be very helpful so can a good spiritual advisor but ultimately the Spirit blows wherever it pleases regardless of outward ecclesial boundaries.

Ah, but "Holy Tradition" does not mean to use tradition(s) to help understand Scripture. The term means that the institutional church can augment Scripture with human opinion as it deems fit and consider it to be divine revelation, just as Scripture is considered by all the mainline churches to be divine revelation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Ah, but "Holy Tradition" does not mean to use tradition(s) to help understand Scripture. The term means that the institutional church can augment Scripture with human opinion as it deems fit and consider it to be divine revelation, just as Scripture is considered by all the mainline churches to be divine revelation.

Actually, using Tradition to help understand Scripture is one very important aspect of Tradition. Human opinion has no place in Sacred Tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

No, that's not true. God's word is supreme. We believe Scripture and Tradition are "God's Word", and we believe all of it is supreme. We don't believe the Bible is all of God's word.

Yes, that's what I said. We know your group believes that the apostles failed to write down in the bible all things salvific.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, that's what I said. We know your group believes that the apostles failed to write down in the bible all things salvific.

That's not what we believe, and that's not what you said.

 

[Standing Up]

It's easy enough for us to go see. CCC 85 says "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition,..."

"True enough (CCC 85).
Your group RC believes Tradition and Scripture source to the same object God. (CCC 80) The point was RC does not think scripture is sufficient for all things salvific. RC does not think scripture is "supreme"."

You're not sola scriptura RC may call oral Tradition whatever it wants, but obviously RC does not think Tradition and Scripture are the same, nor that scripture is somehow superior to Tradition. That was the point you failed to inform as RC's truth.

What does this mean? It means RC believes that the apostles failed to write down all things necessary for salvation. It also means RC believes the church failed at her task to assemble all divine truth into scripture. It also means RC believes it can improve upon the apostles.

So, when we say scripture is supreme, it means we believe the apostles did write down all things necessary for our salvation, that the church got the canon right (at least the NT), and that we can't improve upon the apostolic faith. IOW, the bible is sufficient for all things salvific.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's easy enough for us to go see. CCC 85 says "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition,..."

"True enough (CCC 85).
Your group RC believes Tradition and Scripture source to the same object God. (CCC 80) The point was RC does not think scripture is sufficient for all things salvific. RC does not think scripture is "supreme"."

Right. We believe the Word of God is sufficient for all things salvific. The correction is "RC does not think Scripture alone is "supreme"."

You're not sola scriptura RC may call oral Tradition whatever it wants, but obviously RC does not think Tradition and Scripture are the same, nor that scripture is somehow superior to Tradition. That was the point you failed to inform as RC's truth.

It's not true that "RC may call oral Tradition whatever it wants." But there's a difference between "oral Tradition" and Sacred Tradition that gets lost on you people. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are, exactly, the same-the Word of God.

What does this mean? It means RC believes that the apostles failed to write down all things necessary for salvation. It also means RC believes the church failed at her task to assemble all divine truth into scripture. It also means RC believes it can improve upon the apostles.

Again, wrong. What it means is that the Church has context for Scripture, whereby we can explain confusing things in the Gospels, those things which P (since you love using abbr.) interpret differently, for example. It's therefore easy for P to say "it doesn't mean what you think it means", because you discount Tradition, sacred Tradition.

So, when we say scripture is supreme, it means we believe the apostles did write down all things necessary for our salvation, that the church got the canon right (at least the NT), and that we can't improve upon the apostolic faith. IOW, the bible is sufficient for all things salvific.

And when we say that the Word of God is supreme, it means we believe the apostles did write down all things necessary for our salvation, that the Church got the Canon right, including the OT, and that we don't try to improve on the apostolic faith.

If the Bible alone was sufficient, we wouldn't have arguments about John 6, and Mary, the mother of God. If the Bible alone was sufficient, there would have been no controversy over the natures of Jesus, the Trinity, or anything else.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What does this mean? It means RC believes that the apostles failed to write down all things necessary for salvation.

The New Testament is comprised of letters written primarily by apostles to parishes scattered all over the place. The very idea that everything necessary for the Christian faith could've been codified in writing in the form of those epistles is a major stretch.

The fact is that the ancient world trusted the written word less than the spoken word. The reason for that is because the spoken word comes from a speaker... who can be questioned, double-checked and otherwise vetted.

Plus, the majority of people were illiterate in the ancient world. Sola Scriptura as a doctrine fails just on that basis. Why would God have entrusted His complete revelation in a form that wouldn't be universally accessible until the 20th century??? People could obviously hear and understand spoken words but most of them couldn't read and probably not write words on their own.

The Bible is a collection of sacred scripture but it is not a systematic index for doctrine, faith and morals. It's an inspired part of God's revelation and it is indispensable to Christians but it is not complete unto itself. Even if it did, that message in written form wouldn't have been universally available to all people until a few decades ago when we reached as close to universal literacy as the human race is ever liable to get. Sacred scripture makes no claim of being complete unto itself; in fact it explicitly permits sacred tradition.

The apostles failed at nothing in the way you mean. They simply did not did codify the entire faith in writing because the Church is meant to guide and lead people in the faith using sacred scripture, sacred tradition and the Magisterium.

 

[Albion]

Plus, the majority of people were illiterate in the ancient world. Sola Scriptura as a doctrine fails just on that basis.

(sigh) Sola Scriptura "says" that the Bible is the ultimate in doctrinal authority. If I read it to you, it's still the Bible. If they didn't have all of it at some point in time, we still do--but you are against us adhering to it anyway!

Why would God have entrusted His complete revelation in a form that wouldn't be universally accessible until the 20th century???

What an absolutely absurd thing to say. Most of the Scriptures were read in Jesus time and all of it was finished and read in the churches, just as we do now, within a few generations. After all, Revelation, the Apocalypse wasn't written until the end of the first century.

 

[Root of Jesse]

(sigh) Sola Scriptura "says" that the Bible is the ultimate in doctrinal authority. If I read it to you, it's still the Bible. If they didn't have all of it at some point in time, we still do--but you are against us adhering to it anyway!


What an absolutely absurd thing to say. Most of the Scriptures were read in Jesus time and all of it was finished and read in the churches, just as we do now, within a few generations. After all, Revelation, the Apocalypse wasn't written until the end of the first century.

Are you saying, then, that it's ok that they chained the Bible to the lecturn in Catholic Churches?

BTW, the Bible doesn't have doctrine.

 

[thecolorsblend]

(sigh) Sola Scriptura "says" that the Bible is the ultimate in doctrinal authority.

You agree with defining "Sola Scriptura" as the belief that sacred scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation? Or you disagree?

 

[Albion]

You agree with defining "Sola Scriptura" as the belief that sacred scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation? Or you disagree?

Scripture contains all that is necessary for our salvation. Sola Scriptura refers to a method of ascertaining God's truth, like the so-called Holy Tradition. Neither of these is to be "believed" in as though they were an article of faith found, for example, in the Nicene Creed.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Scripture contains all that is necessary for our salvation. Sola Scriptura refers to a method of ascertaining God's truth, like the so-called Holy Tradition. Neither of these is to be "believed" in as though they were an article of faith found, for example, in the Nicene Creed.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

You agree with defining "Sola Scriptura" as the belief that sacred scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation?

 

[Albion]

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Then it would have to be "no," although Scripture, as I said, does contain all that is necessary for salvation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Then it would have to be "no," although Scripture, as I said, does contain all that is necessary for salvation.

Okay, fair enough. I appreciate your patience in this. However, you need to address this with Standing Up rather than me as I'm only answering the premise he put forth. I pasted that understanding of Sola Scriptura almost verbatim from one of his earlier posts.

 

[Albion]

Okay, fair enough. I appreciate your patience in this.

Thank you for saying that.

However, you need to address this with Standing Up rather than me as I'm only answering the premise he put forth.

Well, if you are the one posting on it and you chose to ask your question of me, my concern is to answer you.

I don't think that's how it works.

"How it works" might be up for more discussion, but that's what it means. A lot of posters here lately, it seems, have been determined to redefine what it means in order to knock it down, so getting the meaning straight is naturally going to be where any good response from us defending Sola Scriptura has to begin.

I pasted that understanding of Sola Scriptura almost verbatim from one of his earlier posts.

I don't doubt you, and I don't mean to cut you off, but I haven't been following all of those other exchanges that closely, so can't really comment further at this point.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

You agree with defining "Sola Scriptura" as the belief that sacred scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation? Or you disagree?

Scripture contains all that is necessary for our salvation. Sola Scriptura refers to a method of ascertaining God's truth, like the so-called Holy Tradition. Neither of these is to be "believed" in as though they were an article of faith found, for example, in the Nicene Creed.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Then it would have to be "no," although Scripture, as I said, does contain all that is necessary for salvation.

Albion, I don't understand your reasoning ... you have said that scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation and that the method of searching the scriptures to ascertain God's truth is Sola Scriptura, yet, you say, Sola Scriptura does not contain everything necessary for salvation. Is it because some are unpractised in the method that you would say that or ??? Please do tell...

 

[Standing Up]

Right. We believe the Word of God is sufficient for all things salvific. The correction is "RC does not think Scripture alone is "supreme"."

Correct. RC defines Word of God to include scripture and whatever tradition its Magisterium decides is Tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

The New Testament is comprised of letters written primarily by apostles to parishes scattered all over the place. The very idea that everything necessary for the Christian faith could've been codified in writing in the form of those epistles is a major stretch.

"Christian faith" means "all things salvific" to you?

The fact is that the ancient world trusted the written word less than the spoken word. The reason for that is because the spoken word comes from a speaker... who can be questioned, double-checked and otherwise vetted.

Christ said, "it is written". He also said, "but I say". We know this because it is written.

Plus, the majority of people were illiterate in the ancient world. Sola Scriptura as a doctrine fails just on that basis. Why would God have entrusted His complete revelation in a form that wouldn't be universally accessible until the 20th century??? People could obviously hear and understand spoken words but most of them couldn't read and probably not write words on their own.

This is why there is criteria for elders.

The Bible is a collection of sacred scripture but it is not a systematic index for doctrine, faith and morals. It's an inspired part of God's revelation and it is indispensable to Christians but it is not complete unto itself. Even if it did, that message in written form wouldn't have been universally available to all people until a few decades ago when we reached as close to universal literacy as the human race is ever liable to get. Sacred scripture makes no claim of being complete unto itself; in fact it explicitly permits sacred tradition.

Scripture does make the claim in a variety of ways, some subtle, some explicit.

The apostles failed at nothing in the way you mean. They simply did not did codify the entire faith in writing because the Church is meant to guide and lead people in the faith using sacred scripture, sacred tradition and the Magisterium.

We disagree. They wrote down all things necessary for your salvation. They left nothing out. We cannot improve upon them.