Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

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

No, whatever Tradition the Holy Spirit inspires the Magisterium to promote.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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



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



This is why there is criteria for elders.



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



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

Show me where Scripture claims to be complete?

If your last statement is true, why such major fights in the early Church about the natures of Christ, the divinity of Christ, and so on? You think you can believe that Christ was not divine, really, and still be saved? It's not explicit to some...just ask Dan Brown.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No, whatever Tradition the Holy Spirit inspires the Magisterium to promote.

This is interesting to me because most Protestants believe that God is capable of protecting the Church from error. Indeed we all agree He did that very thing with the writing of sacred scripture.

We know the Spirit is ready, willing and able to do such a thing. So the questions are:

01- Did that protection from error apply only to writing?
02- Did that protection from error apply only to the first century Church?
03- Why would such protection be granted only once and only in such limited circumstances?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you for saying that.


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


"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 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.

So do all the Protestants on this board agree with Albion on the meaning of Sola Scriptura?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So do all the Protestants on this board agree with Albion on the meaning of Sola Scriptura?

Perhaps you could start another thread with a poll to that effect.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

This is interesting to me because most Protestants believe that God is capable of protecting the Church from error. Indeed we all agree He did that very thing with the writing of sacred scripture.

We know the Spirit is ready, willing and able to do such a thing. So the questions are:

01- Did that protection from error apply only to writing?
02- Did that protection from error apply only to the first century Church?
03- Why would such protection be granted only once and only in such limited circumstances?

I think it's against forum rules to post guesses as facts at what other denominations believe.
What God has proven to protect is His covenant by allowing it (the ark) to fall into enemy hands, while at the same time proceeding to topple the false gods of those same enemies. 1 samuel 5

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think it's against forum rules to post guesses as facts at what other denominations believe.

I'm extrapolating based on what others have posted in this self-same thread as well as the entire conceit of the Sola Scriptura doctrine.

Mind you, we're 80+ pages into this discussion and there's yet to be a definition presented for Sola Scriptura that all Protestants are willing to agree about.

But instead of casting about in the darkness, perhaps you'd be willing to define Sola Scriptura in a way that everyone can agree on so that the discussion can better continue. Thank you in advance.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Perhaps you could start another thread with a poll to that effect.

Been there, done that. Still don't have an answer.

 

[Standing Up]

Show me where Scripture claims to be complete?

But these [signs] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:4

Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 2 Peter 1:5 (How? Write it down and canonize it.)

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed ...
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
. Romans 10:1, 17 (This is a reference to why Moses wrote it down.)

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10:11

There is no sense in scripture that the apostles left anything necessary for salvation out. For example, the IC of Mary is de fide RC believes. As such, RC believes the apostles forgot this and that it can improve upon them. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If your last statement is true, why such major fights in the early Church about the natures of Christ, the divinity of Christ, and so on? You think you can believe that Christ was not divine, really, and still be saved? It's not explicit to some...just ask Dan Brown.

How do you know Christ was divine? Arius arose because people denied Christ and they invented the adoption theory, thus they didn't deny God per se. The ever-virgin idea arose because of piousness over truth (Origen paraphrased). The fight about Gentile duties to the Law arose as power, prestige was lost. The ones who lost over transubstantiation were martyred. Most of the fights didn't have to do with agreeing with "it is written", but because of other ideas and motives. And remember, these fights were by bishops and priests within Christianity. Don't blame the bible for the state of men's hearts.

 

[Standing Up]

This is interesting to me because most Protestants believe that God is capable of protecting the Church from error. Indeed we all agree He did that very thing with the writing of sacred scripture.

We know the Spirit is ready, willing and able to do such a thing. So the questions are:

01- Did that protection from error apply only to writing?
02- Did that protection from error apply only to the first century Church?
03- Why would such protection be granted only once and only in such limited circumstances?

1) We have no way to prove a negative; that is, whether the Spirit protected someone's understanding, however pious the claim, of oral tradition. Everyone believes their group is right and is Spirit led.

 

[Albion]

Mind you, we're 80+ pages into this discussion and there's yet to be a definition presented for Sola Scriptura that all Protestants are willing to agree about.

Yes, but that's the case with any doctrine and whether the respondents are Catholic or Protestant. We have all kinds of people here posting under the Christian banner and some of them word things awkwardly, misunderstand their own churches' teachings, and etc. So there's nothing special about there being a variety of answers...and of course a poll is not the way to decide anything when it comes to a definition of a theological term.

 

[Albion]

Been there, done that. Still don't have an answer.

Didn't like the answer would be more accurate, wouldn't it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

But these [signs] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:4

Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 2 Peter 1:5 (How? Write it down and canonize it.)

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed ...
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
. Romans 10:1, 17 (This is a reference to why Moses wrote it down.)

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10:11

There is no sense in scripture that the apostles left anything necessary for salvation out. For example, the IC of Mary is de fide RC believes. As such, RC believes the apostles forgot this and that it can improve upon them. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

None of this suggests that it's complete. Besides, why wouldn't we have writings from all the apostles? Weren't they all just as important as each other?

How do you know Christ was divine? Arius arose because people denied Christ and they invented the adoption theory, thus they didn't deny God per se. The ever-virgin idea arose because of piousness over truth (Origen paraphrased). The fight about Gentile duties to the Law arose as power, prestige was lost. The ones who lost over transubstantiation were martyred. Most of the fights didn't have to do with agreeing with "it is written", but because of other ideas and motives. And remember, these fights were by bishops and priests within Christianity. Don't blame the bible for the state of men's hearts.

Christ TOLD US he's divine. Yet Arius etc denied it. The angel Gabriel TOLD us that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and Scripture TELLS us that Mary didn't have other children. So don't try to say that it wasn't written down...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, but that's the case with any doctrine and whether the respondents are Catholic or Protestant. We have all kinds of people here posting under the Christian banner and some of them word things awkwardly, misunderstand their own churches' teachings, and etc. So there's nothing special about there being a variety of answers...and of course a poll is not the way to decide anything when it comes to a definition of a theological term.

The only authority on Catholic doctrine is the Catholic CCC. People are entitled to their opinions but not to what doctrine is. Doctrine for you would be from your denomination, not what people of your denomination opine.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Didn't like the answer would be more accurate, wouldn't it?

No, I still don't have an answer that all ya'll would agree to...doctrinally.

 

[bbbbbbb]

None of this suggests that it's complete. Besides, why wouldn't we have writings from all the apostles? Weren't they all just as important as each other?

Christ TOLD US he's divine. Yet Arius etc denied it. The angel Gabriel TOLD us that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and Scripture TELLS us that Mary didn't have other children. So don't try to say that it wasn't written down...

The angel Gabriel TOLD us that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and Scripture TELLS us that Mary didn't have other children. Really?!?!?!? Precisely where in scripture are these statements made (not implied, but made exactly as you have stated them)?

 

[SAAN]

How to Love God and One another is clearly laid out by all the commands of the Torah and then repeated in the NT.

Is this read really just 86+ pages of trying to make RCC teachings equal to the scriptures?

 

[Albion]

The only authority on Catholic doctrine is the Catholic CCC.

Well, no. I really have no idea why Catholics think that this is the case. You should be able easily to see in the Catechism itself that it's a popular, yet official, guide to the decisions and position statements that have defined Catholic teaching.

 

[Standing Up]

None of this suggests that it's complete.

Complete for what? Your religion that requires you to believe your Magisterium? You'd be correct. For some of us, scripture is complete for you to be saved. As to scripture alone, we believe scripture alone is the authority for doctrine and practice. As the quotes showed, this includes all things salvific. We don't believe the Spirit failed to bring all things necessary to the apostles as they recorded the events.

Christ TOLD US he's divine.

You do hear the irony of your accepting this, right? You know that only because "it is written", not because of your Magisterium.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The angel Gabriel TOLD us that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and Scripture TELLS us that Mary didn't have other children. Really?!?!?!? Precisely where in scripture are these statements made (not implied, but made exactly as you have stated them)?

Name Mary's other children, from Scripture, please. Full of grace means what, to you? (Hint: This is where Sacred Tradition comes in...)