Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

MoreCoffee · Dec 21, 2015

Standing Up said:
...

Here's Christ in Luke 24:27.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Then he said to them, 'You foolish men! So slow to believe all that the prophets have said! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?' Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself.
(Luke 24:25-27 NJB)

The Lord makes good use of the holy scriptures of the old testament to instruct the two disciples on the road. He helped them to identify the prophecies about himself because they did not see them as applying to him until the link between the prophet's words and his and also the link to his life, death, and resurrection was made but this passage does not say "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". You need to find a passage that really does teach that doctrine since you say is what you believe.

Here's Peter in 2 Peter 1:21.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When we told you about the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not slavishly repeating cleverly invented myths; no, we had seen his majesty with our own eyes. He was honoured and glorified by God the Father, when a voice came to him from the transcendent Glory, This is my Son, the Beloved; he enjoys my favour. We ourselves heard this voice from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as to a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.
(2 Peter 1:16-21 NJB)

Saint Peter is speaking about what he heard and witnessed rather than what he had written and when he identifies what his readers need to pay attention to he points to the scripture of the old testament and he makes it clear that he is dealing with what is written in the scriptures (scripture means "writing"). He affirms that the holy scriptures contain what the Holy Spirit revealed but he does not say that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice" He points to what he saw and heard as confirming the [written] word of the prophets. Clearly his experience of the transfiguration is, in his teaching, confirmation of what the prophets had to say was said [written] about Jesus Christ. And that is not something contained in the old testament books.

Here's Paul in Acts 26:22.
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

'After that, King Agrippa, I could not disobey the heavenly vision. On the contrary I started preaching, first to the people of Damascus, then to those of Jerusalem and all Judaean territory, and also to the gentiles, urging them to repent and turn to God, proving their change of heart by their deeds. This was why the Jews laid hands on me in the Temple and tried to do away with me. But I was blessed with God's help, and so I have stood firm to this day, testifying to great and small alike, saying nothing more than what the prophets and Moses himself said would happen: that the Christ was to suffer and that, as the first to rise from the dead, he was to proclaim a light for our people and for the gentiles.'
(Acts 26:19-23 NJB)

Saint Paul is teaching a Jew (king Agrippa) about Jesus Christ and in doing so he follows his usual custom of quoting from the old testament scriptures to bolster his account of the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. But saint Paul does not say nor does he teach that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

Everyone good? Any disagreement?

So, SS is in OT.

BobRyan · Dec 21, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Then he said to them, 'You foolish men! So slow to believe all that the prophets have said! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?' Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself.
(Luke 24:25-27 NJB)

The Lord makes good use of the holy scriptures of the old testament to instruct the two disciples on the road. He helped them to identify the prophecies about himself because they did not see them as applying to him until the link between the prophet's words and his and also the link to his life, death, and resurrection was made but this passage does not say "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". You need to find a passage that really does teach that doctrine since you say is what you believe.

Here your argument dies altogether.

Christ is God - the resurrected Christ -- if the "basis" of their faith was supposed to be "whatever you were just - told -- and not the Bible" -- then Christ would have been saying "believe what I say - I am God (or at least a very godly 'stranger' you just met) - just believe whatever I say".

This is the "ultimate" example of "appealing to scripture and NOT - just trust me" because it is the risen Christ doing this!! He deliberately presents Himself to them as a "stranger" and not the risen Lord so that "sola scriptura testing" is the only option they have!!

There is not a soul here who would not take that doctrine directly from Christ - and STILL he points them back to scripture!!

This is a huge "fail" for the argument opposed to testing all doctrine "sola scriptura"

BobRyan · Dec 21, 2015

Standing Up said:
Here's Christ in Luke 24:27.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Here's Peter in 2 Peter 1:21.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Here's Paul in Acts 26:22.
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Everyone good? Any disagreement?

So, SS is in OT.

Sounds good to me!!

Standing Up · Dec 21, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Then he said to them, 'You foolish men! So slow to believe all that the prophets have said! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?' Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself.
(Luke 24:25-27 NJB)

The Lord makes good use of the holy scriptures of the old testament to instruct the two disciples on the road. He helped them to identify the prophecies about himself because they did not see them as applying to him until the link between the prophet's words and his and also the link to his life, death, and resurrection was made but this passage does not say "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". You need to find a passage that really does teach that doctrine since you say is what you believe.

When we told you about the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not slavishly repeating cleverly invented myths; no, we had seen his majesty with our own eyes. He was honoured and glorified by God the Father, when a voice came to him from the transcendent Glory, This is my Son, the Beloved; he enjoys my favour. We ourselves heard this voice from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as to a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.
(2 Peter 1:16-21 NJB)

Saint Peter is speaking about what he heard and witnessed rather than what he had written and when he identifies what his readers need to pay attention to he points to the scripture of the old testament and he makes it clear that he is dealing with what is written in the scriptures (scripture means "writing"). He affirms that the holy scriptures contain what the Holy Spirit revealed but he does not say that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice" He points to what he saw and heard as confirming the [written] word of the prophets. Clearly his experience of the transfiguration is, in his teaching, confirmation of what the prophets had to say was said [written] about Jesus Christ. And that is not something contained in the old testament books.

'After that, King Agrippa, I could not disobey the heavenly vision. On the contrary I started preaching, first to the people of Damascus, then to those of Jerusalem and all Judaean territory, and also to the gentiles, urging them to repent and turn to God, proving their change of heart by their deeds. This was why the Jews laid hands on me in the Temple and tried to do away with me. But I was blessed with God's help, and so I have stood firm to this day, testifying to great and small alike, saying nothing more than what the prophets and Moses himself said would happen: that the Christ was to suffer and that, as the first to rise from the dead, he was to proclaim a light for our people and for the gentiles.'
(Acts 26:19-23 NJB)

Saint Paul is teaching a Jew (king Agrippa) about Jesus Christ and in doing so he follows his usual custom of quoting from the old testament scriptures to bolster his account of the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. But saint Paul does not say nor does he teach that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

We've already agreed that you won't find your bolded quote in the bible. Nor will you find the word trinity. So what's your point? Can you take a fresh look at post #1875 with this in mind.

Standing Up · Dec 21, 2015

Here's Christ in Luke 24:27.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

BobRyan said:
Sounds good to me!!

The SS definition in practice by none other than Christ Jesus.

"the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

MoreCoffee · Dec 21, 2015

Standing Up said:
We've already agreed that you won't find your bolded quote in the bible

the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice
The quote is the doctrine that you said you believe and teach, isn't it? Or are you backing away from it because it is not in the bible and is not taught in the bible?

MoreCoffee · Dec 21, 2015

Standing Up said:
Can you take a fresh look at post #1875 with this in mind.

I posted an analysis of #1875, perhaps repeating it will help to concentrate the mind, and then a reply to the points raised and any opposing points that you care to raise would be interesting to see.

Standing Up said:
...

Here's Christ in Luke 24:27.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Then he said to them, 'You foolish men! So slow to believe all that the prophets have said! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?' Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself.
(Luke 24:25-27 NJB)

The Lord makes good use of the holy scriptures of the old testament to instruct the two disciples on the road. He helped them to identify the prophecies about himself because they did not see them as applying to him until the link between the prophet's words and his and also the link to his life, death, and resurrection was made but this passage does not say "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". You need to find a passage that really does teach that doctrine since you say it is what you believe.

Here's Peter in 2 Peter 1:21.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When we told you about the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not slavishly repeating cleverly invented myths; no, we had seen his majesty with our own eyes. He was honoured and glorified by God the Father, when a voice came to him from the transcendent Glory, This is my Son, the Beloved; he enjoys my favour. We ourselves heard this voice from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as to a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.
(2 Peter 1:16-21 NJB)

Saint Peter is speaking about what he heard and witnessed rather than what he had written and when he identifies what his readers need to pay attention to he points to the scripture of the old testament and he makes it clear that he is dealing with what is written in the scriptures (scripture means "writing"). He affirms that the holy scriptures contain what the Holy Spirit revealed but he does not say that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice" He points to what he saw and heard as confirming the [written] word of the prophets. Clearly his experience of the transfiguration is, in his teaching, confirmation of what the prophets had to say was said [written] about Jesus Christ. And that is not something contained in the old testament books.

Here's Paul in Acts 26:22.
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

'After that, King Agrippa, I could not disobey the heavenly vision. On the contrary I started preaching, first to the people of Damascus, then to those of Jerusalem and all Judaean territory, and also to the gentiles, urging them to repent and turn to God, proving their change of heart by their deeds. This was why the Jews laid hands on me in the Temple and tried to do away with me. But I was blessed with God's help, and so I have stood firm to this day, testifying to great and small alike, saying nothing more than what the prophets and Moses himself said would happen: that the Christ was to suffer and that, as the first to rise from the dead, he was to proclaim a light for our people and for the gentiles.'
(Acts 26:19-23 NJB)

Saint Paul is teaching a Jew (king Agrippa) about Jesus Christ and in doing so he follows his usual custom of quoting from the old testament scriptures to bolster his account of the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. But saint Paul does not say nor does he teach that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

Everyone good? Any disagreement?

So, SS is in OT.

Standing Up · Dec 21, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice
The quote is the doctrine that you said you believe and teach, isn't it? Or are you backing away from it because it is not in the bible and is not taught in the bible?

So, the word Trinity is not in the bible. But you do affirm that, correct? If you do, what's the difference; the principle is the same.

SS is shown over and over in scripture. You simply have no valid argument.

Standing Up · Dec 21, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
but this passage does not say "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". You need to find a passage that really does teach that doctrine since you say is what you believe.

You won't find that sentence, just like you won't find the word Trinity. Do you agree with the Nicene Creed? If you do, your comments are void, spurious, as one who beats against the wind.

MoreCoffee · Dec 22, 2015

Standing Up said:
So, the word Trinity is not in the bible. But you do affirm that, correct? If you do, what's the difference; the principle is the same.

SS is shown over and over in scripture. You simply have no valid argument.

The difference is that the doctrine of the holy Trinity actually is taught in holy scripture, albeit in many places and as a cumulative process of progressive revelation wherein it is first revealed that there is one God and one God alone however this one God is revealed as the Father throughout the old covenant and he is revealed as the Son in the gospels and he is revealed as the holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles and in various portions of the letters of the apostles and of saint Paul. The distinctness of each person of the Blessed trinity is also progressively revealed so that no one reading holy Scripture with due care can come away from it without understanding that the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit are distinct one from another. Yet each is called God and acts as God and works the miracle of the salvation of sinners from the penalty and corruption of their sins. However SS is not progressively revealed in holy scripture and it is not revealed in any specific passage neither is the idea that the bible and the bible alone is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. In the holy scriptures the idea that scripture testifies to the coming of the Messiah is present and so too is the idea that those who know the story of the Lord Jesus Christ can identify him as messiah. The latter idea is present in the new covenant revelations but it is not present in the old covenant writings and without the testimony of those who knew him and the witness of the holy Spirit no one comes to savingly believe that Jesus is messiah - we see the difficulty of coming to faith in Jesus as messiah in the persistent rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ by those who follow Judaism and by those who follow Mohammed and by those who have rejected the gospel when they have heard it. But neither the testimony to the coming of messiah nor the identification of Jesus as messiah teaches us to believe that the bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. You have not made your case for SS, you are welcome to present more evidence.

Rick Otto · Dec 22, 2015

Since no scriptures or arguments against Sola Scripture have been presented, I suggest we move on.

Standing Up · Dec 22, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
The difference is that the doctrine of the holy Trinity actually is taught in holy scripture, albeit in many places and as a cumulative process of progressive revelation wherein it is first revealed that there is one God and one God alone however this one God is revealed as the Father throughout the old covenant and he is revealed as the Son in the gospels and he is revealed as the holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles and in various portions of the letters of the apostles and of saint Paul. The distinctness of each person of the Blessed trinity is also progressively revealed so that no one reading holy Scripture with due care can come away from it without understanding that the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit are distinct one from another. Yet each is called God and acts as God and works the miracle of the salvation of sinners from the penalty and corruption of their sins. However SS is not progressively revealed in holy scripture and it is not revealed in any specific passage neither is the idea that the bible and the bible alone is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. In the holy scriptures the idea that scripture testifies to the coming of the Messiah is present and so too is the idea that those who know the story of the Lord Jesus Christ can identify him as messiah. The latter idea is present in the new covenant revelations but it is not present in the old covenant writings and without the testimony of those who knew him and the witness of the holy Spirit no one comes to savingly believe that Jesus is messiah - we see the difficulty of coming to faith in Jesus as messiah in the persistent rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ by those who follow Judaism and by those who follow Mohammed and by those who have rejected the gospel when they have heard it. But neither the testimony to the coming of messiah nor the identification of Jesus as messiah teaches us to believe that the bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. You have not made your case for SS, you are welcome to present more evidence.

And thus we get a revealing picture of the difference between SS (written faith once delivered) and traditions of men (progressive opinion over time).

As was shown by many of us, Christ, Peter, Paul, others all use scripture to make their doctrinal points. None call upon tradition. None call upon a so-called teaching magisterium.

Notice how MC models SS, while at the same time being unable to grasp that he does so. I've bolded his words as his witness to the bible as supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Lastly, to be clear, RC will implode should they comprehend SS. Their Traditions of men, like ever-virgin, immaculate conception, teaching magisterium, etc would collapse like the straw it is. Thus, RC must walk in its blindness even as it models the path.

Root of Jesse · Dec 22, 2015

BobRyan said:
Here your argument dies altogether.

Christ is God - the resurrected Christ -- if the "basis" of their faith was supposed to be "whatever you were just - told -- and not the Bible" -- then Christ would have been saying "believe what I say - I am God (or at least a very godly 'stranger' you just met) - just believe whatever I say".

This is the "ultimate" example of "appealing to scripture and NOT - just trust me" because it is the risen Christ doing this!! He deliberately presents Himself to them as a "stranger" and not the risen Lord so that "sola scriptura testing" is the only option they have!!

There is not a soul here who would not take that doctrine directly from Christ - and STILL he points them back to scripture!!

This is a huge "fail" for the argument opposed to testing all doctrine "sola scriptura"

Regarding the bolded, are you saying that Christ on earth was not God???

Root of Jesse · Dec 22, 2015

Standing Up said:
We've already agreed that you won't find your bolded quote in the bible. Nor will you find the word trinity. So what's your point? Can you take a fresh look at post #1875 with this in mind.

The point is that we have Traditions which are Biblical, yet there is no mention of them in the Bible. An example of why SS is just a late innovation.

Root of Jesse · Dec 22, 2015

Standing Up said:
Here's Christ in Luke 24:27.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The SS definition in practice by none other than Christ Jesus.

"the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

Where did Jesus say that?

Root of Jesse · Dec 22, 2015

Standing Up said:
And thus we get a revealing picture of the difference between SS (written faith once delivered) and traditions of men (progressive opinion over time).

As was shown by many of us, Christ, Peter, Paul, others all use scripture to make their doctrinal points. None call upon tradition. None call upon a so-called teaching magisterium.

Notice how MC models SS, while at the same time being unable to grasp that he does so. I've bolded his words as his witness to the bible as supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Lastly, to be clear, RC will implode should they comprehend SS. Their Traditions of men, like ever-virgin, immaculate conception, teaching magisterium, etc would collapse like the straw it is. Thus, RC must walk in its blindness even as it models the path.

Wrong. The doctrine of the Trinity is not Scriptural, though there are mentions and examples of the Trinity in many places. The doctrine, though, isn't there.

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Regarding the bolded, are you saying that Christ on earth was not God???

I am saying that they had every reason (as we would) to simply take whatever the risen Lord said - so He deliberately comes to them as a "stranger" and the case he makes is "sola scriptura".

But this would the perfect RCC context for "just because I say so - not because we need a Bible to show us or prove something" -- had that been the preferred model.

This is irrefutable. Christ goes out of his way to establish a "sola scriptura" context.

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Wrong. The doctrine of the Trinity is not Scriptural, .

Maybe yours is not scriptural -- I suppose we may have to take your word for that.

But ours is scriptural.

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2015

Rick Otto said:
Since no scriptures or arguments against Sola Scripture have been presented, I suggest we move on.

At the very least we can affirm that there is no Bible reason to reject the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition - that we see Christ Himself using in Mark 7:6-13

Job8 · Dec 22, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Where did Jesus say that?

Look up "Scripture" and "Scriptures" in an exhaustive concordance.

Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Do You Adhear to Sola Scriptura?

Yes

No

Unsure

Other

Repentance works.

Junior Member

Junior Member

On and on

On and on

Repentance works.

Repentance works.

On and on

On and on

Repentance works.

The Dude Abides

On and on

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency