Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

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.

No, it's not. It's a compilation of doctrine. You have no idea...obviously.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Yes. We get our doctrine from Scripture. We don't believe the Spirit stopped bringing us what's necessary.

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

We know this because it was spoken before it was written. And we know that God still speaks to us who listen.

 

[Albion]

No, it's not. It's a compilation of doctrine. You have no idea...obviously.

Of course it's a "compilation." You didn't insist that we see it as a "compilation" but as THE "authority" on doctrine.

"The only authority on Catholic doctrine is the Catholic CCC."-- Root of Jesse.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of course it's a "compilation." You didn't insist that we see it as a "compilation" but as THE "authority" on doctrine.

"The only authority on Catholic doctrine is the Catholic CCC."-- Root of Jesse.

It is the authority. Every Catholic doctrine is in the Catechism, which also states in footnotes the origins of the doctrine. In fact, nearly every verse of Scripture is referenced in the Catechism. We call guys like you sea lawyers...Sigh all you want to.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes. We get our doctrine from Scripture. We don't believe the Spirit stopped bringing us what's necessary.

You're misleading. RC gets its doctrines from Scripture and tradition via its Magisterium. The Magisterium defines tradition as Tradition.

We know this because it was spoken before it was written. And we know that God still speaks to us who listen.

You know it because "it is written". You'd have no idea what they spoke had it not been written.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You're misleading. RC gets its doctrines from Scripture and tradition via its Magisterium. The Magisterium defines tradition as Tradition.

It's not at all misleading. The Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture flow out of and into each other seamlessly. Except for those who rip them apart.

You know it because "it is written". You'd have no idea what they spoke had it not been written.

I don't believe that's true. We'd know about it because people would still be talking about it, just the same way the Torah was spoken down through ages and ages before it was written down.

 

[Albion]

It is the authority. Every Catholic doctrine is in the Catechism

Maybe it's just the English language that's your problem.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe it's just the English language that's your problem.

Very substantive.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't believe that's true. We'd know about it because people would still be talking about it, just the same way the Torah was spoken down through ages and ages before it was written down.

The Torah wasn't known about until Moses met God. So no.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Torah wasn't known about until Moses met God. So no.

I apologize, I was talking about Genesis. The part of Genesis that covers Creation to the Flood, was handed down orally long before it was written, so yes.

 

[Standing Up]

I apologize, I was talking about Genesis. The part of Genesis that covers Creation to the Flood, was handed down orally long before it was written, so yes.

Back to the point, there's lots of creation theories, turtle holding up the earth, Atlas, etc, but how do you know which story handed down is true? For some of us, it is the written, fulfilled prophecy that was also written. You know, foundation of prophets and apostles. Not oral cultural traditions that some masquerade in various ways as the truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Back to the point, there's lots of creation theories, turtle holding up the earth, Atlas, etc, but how do you know which story handed down is true? For some of us, it is the written, fulfilled prophecy that was also written. You know, foundation of prophets and apostles. Not oral cultural traditions that some masquerade in various ways as the truth.

The account in Genesis was handed down and is true. Same with the flood.

 

[Hoghead1]

How can the Genesis account even begin to be true, when it consists of two contradictory chronologies written by two different authors and different periods of time?

 

[Rick Otto]

Back to the point, there's lots of creation theories, turtle holding up the earth, Atlas, etc, but how do you know which story handed down is true? For some of us, it is the written, fulfilled prophecy that was also written. You know, foundation of prophets and apostles. Not oral cultural traditions that some masquerade in various ways as the truth.

He knows because he is told to know by those he is told to believe.
Do what your told.
Mom knows best.

 

[Root of Jesse]

How can the Genesis account even begin to be true, when it consists of two contradictory chronologies written by two different authors and different periods of time?

Who says it's contradictory? If you let two people observe an elephant, one at his front, one at his back, and then ask them to describe what they see, it's the same elephant from two different points of view. Genesis is true for what it conveys.

 

[tulipbee]

Who says it's contradictory? If you let two people observe an elephant, one at his front, one at his back, and then ask them to describe what they see, it's the same elephant from two different points of view. Genesis is true for what it conveys.

Brain on one end and a different brain on the other end. Catholics have a bad record using the wrong brain.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does it matter if the Bible Alone is claimed to be the foundation for all the important doctrines of one's denomination if the doctrines are created by human beings interpreting various passages in holy scripture? There are differences of opinion about the right interpretation of holy scripture and that is why there are differences in doctrine between various groups of professing christians and that being so it seems that holy scripture does not really provide a sufficient source of all those doctrines. For example is baptism regenerative or not? Another example is the Lord's supper his body and blood or not and if so in what sense is it his body and blood? There are major denominations on both sides of those questions. Some claim that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (Some "Church of Christ" denominations) while others deny that (Many Calvinist denominations). Some claim that the Lord supper is the body and blood of Christ (Some Anglican denoninations though it may be meant in more than one sense and some Lutheran denominations) while others deny it (Many Baptist denominations some Reformed denominations). If the holy scriptures cannot settle these disputes then is it sufficient?

 

[Standing Up]

If the holy scriptures cannot settle these disputes then is it sufficient?

Think of it this way. You get a ticket for driving through a light. You believe it was green, the person behind you thought it yellow. The officer thought it red. The book of law is read---ticket those who drive through a red light. The book is still the authority, whether the three people agree on the light. And as you know, there are extenuating circumstances, like maybe a baby was being born (the thief on the cross).

SS is simply the agreement that scripture is the authority on things salvific. For example, RC once believed that to be saved you must be in communion with the pope. Scripture disagrees. Some of us trust the apostolic witness more than tradition of man in this regard.

Don't blame the seed if the ground won't yield.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The example give in the quote below is irrelevant because the question is not what colour the light was and the opinions of the guilty party, the police officer and a bystander. The question is what the book says and what it means.

Think of it this way. You get a ticket for driving through a light. You believe it was green, the person behind you thought it yellow. The officer thought it red. The book of law is read---ticket those who drive through a red light. The book is still the authority, whether the three people agree on the light. And as you know, there are extenuating circumstances, like maybe a baby was being born (the thief on the cross).

SS is simply the agreement that scripture is the authority on things salvific. For example, RC once believed that to be saved you must be in communion with the pope. Scripture disagrees. Some of us trust the apostolic witness more than tradition of man in this regard.

 

[Rick Otto]

What does it matter if the Bible Alone is claimed to be the foundation for all the important doctrines of one's denomination if the doctrines are created by human beings interpreting various passages in holy scripture? There are differences of opinion about the right interpretation of holy scripture and that is why there are differences in doctrine between various groups of professing christians and that being so it seems that holy scripture does not really provide a sufficient source of all those doctrines. For example is baptism regenerative or not? Another example is the Lord's supper his body and blood or not and if so in what sense is it his body and blood? There are major denominations on both sides of those questions. Some claim that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (Some "Church of Christ" denominations) while others deny that (Many Calvinist denominations). Some claim that the Lord supper is the body and blood of Christ (Some Anglican denoninations though it may be meant in more than one sense and some Lutheran denominations) while others deny it (Many Baptist denominations some Reformed denominations). If the holy scriptures cannot settle these disputes then is it sufficient?

It is sufficient as it says it is.
I don't judge truth by how many and who believe it.
It does not claim to be sufficient for settling disputes between men over how to interpret it.
If it could, the Roman Catholic Church would be catholic and share communion with the Eastern Orthodox catholics.