Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[BobRyan]

Do you folks keep confusing SS and interpretation on purpose so as to avoid coming to the conclusion?

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Nothing in there about who interprets or which manuscript to use. It is simply what Christ did, even as you say! "he shows them Scripture"

Amen! Excellent point!

 

[Standing Up]

Amen! Excellent point!

Thanks.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you folks keep confusing SS and interpretation on purpose so as to avoid coming to the conclusion?

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Nothing in there about who interprets or which manuscript to use. It is simply what Christ did, even as you say! "he shows them Scripture"

I have a bible next to my desk as I type this post and it isn't exercising any authority as I type. It just sits where it is and offers no commentary. But if I pick it up and read from it and interpret its words as significant for what I am typing then my interpretation exercises authority and if my interpretation is in conformity to Church teaching then the Church's teaching exercises some authority and if what the Church teaches is what the Spirit and the Bride say (the bride being the Church) then God is exercising authority through the holy Spirit's presence and power and through the Church which is the body of Christ. So it seems that authority really does come from interpretation of the bible rather than from a passive bible that is near to hand but un-interpreted.

 

[Standing Up]

I have a bible next to my desk as I type this post and it isn't exercising any authority as I type. It just sits where it is and offers no commentary. But if I pick it up and read from it and interpret its words as significant for what I am typing then my interpretation exercises authority and if my interpretation is in conformity to Church teaching then the Church's teaching exercises some authority and if what the Church teaches is what the Spirit and the Bride say (the bride being the Church) then God is exercising authority through the holy Spirit's presence and power and through the Church which is the body of Christ. So it seems that authority really does come from interpretation of the bible rather than from a passive bible that is near to hand but un-interpreted.

People have a hard time grasping the difference between authority and interpreting said authority. I suppose we could agree that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are authority in the US. Then there is the interpreting thereof. But no lawyer in her right mind is going to say the Constitution is not the authority.

To take another example, for RC its interpreter is its Magisterium. To what does the Magisterium interpret? Not scripture alone, but also tradition. RC's Magisterium COULD say we are SS, and still retain its RC authority to interpret. Interpretation and SS are two wholly different concepts.

So folks, quit building strawmen of interpretation to battle against SS.

 

[thecolorsblend]

People have a hard time grasping the difference between authority and interpreting said authority. I suppose we could agree that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are authority in the US. Then there is the interpreting thereof. But no lawyer in her right mind is going to say the Constitution is not the authority.

To take another example, for RC its interpreter is its Magisterium. To what does the Magisterium interpret? Not scripture alone, but also tradition. RC's Magisterium COULD say we are SS, and still retain its RC authority to interpret. Interpretation and SS are two wholly different concepts.

So folks, quit building strawmen of interpretation to battle against SS.

Suppose, as is common, two Protestants who agree equally about Sola Scriptura read the same passage of Sacred Scripture and reach two completely opposing conclusions. At least one of them is wrong. They might both be wrong but they can't both be right. How would you identify which one is authoritative and correct?

 

[Standing Up]

Suppose, as is common, two Protestants who agree equally about Sola Scriptura read the same passage of Sacred Scripture and reach two completely opposing conclusions. At least one of them is wrong. They might both be wrong but they can't both be right. How would you identify which one is authoritative and correct?

Different issue for a different thread.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

People have a hard time grasping the difference between authority and interpreting said authority. I suppose we could agree that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are authority in the US. Then there is the interpreting thereof. But no lawyer in her right mind is going to say the Constitution is not the authority.

To take another example, for RC its interpreter is its Magisterium. To what does the Magisterium interpret? Not scripture alone, but also tradition. RC's Magisterium COULD say we are SS, and still retain its RC authority to interpret. Interpretation and SS are two wholly different concepts.

So folks, quit building strawmen of interpretation to battle against SS.

LLoJ goes to wiki!

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Search Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

In Catholicism, the magisterium is the authority to lay down what is the authentic teaching of the Church.[1][2] For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested uniquely in the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him.[3]
Sacred Scripture and Tradition "make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church",[4] and the magisterium is not independent of this, since "all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is derived from this single deposit of faith."[5]................

The exercise of the Church's magisterium is sometimes, but only rarely, expressed in the solemn form of an ex cathedra papal declaration, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church",[6] or of a similar declaration by an ecumenical council.
Such solemn declarations of the Church's teaching involve the infallibility of the Church.

The Church's magisterium is exercised without this solemnity in statements by popes and bishops, whether collectively (as by an episcopal conference) or singly, in written documents such as catechisms, encyclicals and pastoral letters, or orally, as in homilies.
These statements are part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Ordinary magisterium may refer to:

• A category of officials in the Roman Republic. See Magistratus.

• The bishops of the Catholic Church in their role as teachers. When the bishops teach something with unanimity, they are referred to as the ordinary and universal magisterium; see Infallibility of the Church, and Magisterium.

Extraordinary magisterium may refer to:

• A category of officials in the Roman Republic. See Magistratus.

• The bishops of the Catholic Church when gathered in an ecumenical council, or the Pope when teaching ex cathedra. See Infallibility of the Church and Magisterium.

Do You Adhear to Sola Scriptura?

1. *
   Yes
   52 vote(s)
   59.8%
2. No
   28 vote(s)
   32.2%
3. Unsure
   3 vote(s)
   3.4%
4. Other
   4 vote(s)
   4.6%

.

 

[Standing Up]

LLoJ goes to wiki!

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Search Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

In Catholicism, the magisterium is the authority to lay down what is the authentic teaching of the Church..

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

RC: the magisterium is the authority and interpreter and decider of what is the deposit to decide doctrine and practice.

So far, we've shown SS to be true and exhibited in scripture.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Different issue for a different thread.

I'm afraid I don't see how. This thread is dedicated to why Sacred Scripture alone is not sufficient to be the sole rule of faith. My post was the first part of what was going to be a dialectic on how exactly that can be demonstrated vis a vis Protestant practice. So on that basis, I'd say my post relates directly to the topic at hand.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone")

For a group who want to demonstrate that the practices and structures of the Catholic Church are not binding upon them, you guys sure do use a lot of Latin.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm afraid I don't see how. This thread is dedicated to why Sacred Scripture alone is not sufficient to be the sole rule of faith. My post was the first part of what was going to be a dialectic on how exactly that can be demonstrated vis a vis Protestant practice. So on that basis, I'd say my post relates directly to the topic at hand.

Well, you can set up a strawman of different interpretations and whack away. But SS doesn't posit that.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I really liked that "blowing mighty winds at it" comment,

Its like you can feel it

 

[TheDag]

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.

There are three categories that everything falls in.
Biblical = Is in the bible and the bible supports it
Unbiblical = Is in the bible and the bible is against it
Extra-biblical = Is not in the bible and the bible is neither for it or against it.

You statement here though goes directly against what you have been arguing. You need to make up your mind as to which is correct rather than holding to a position that contains double standards. Your choice.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Late to the party and not going to read the last 1950 or so posts to see if this point was brought up...

What about 2 Tim 3:15-17? Maybe it's my night shift blearied mind but does this not show SS?

2 Timothy 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I don't read here that context or tradition has anything to do with being made perfect in understanding or doing the gospel of Christ...

 

[Fireinfolding]

You would think, although I don't think there is any message left except, Big T (tradition) and big M (Mary) everything else takes a back seat to those banners pretty much.

A tradition Paul kept (as an apostle was being a tent maker for a living) Im sure we have some of those sorts of apostles (to day) holding to the same tradition Paul spoke of there lol

 

[topcare]

Late to the party and not going to read the last 1950 or so posts to see if this point was brought up...

What about 2 Tim 3:15-17? Maybe it's my night shift blearied mind but does this not show SS?

2 Timothy 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I don't read here that context or tradition has anything to do with being made perfect in understanding or doing the gospel of Christ...

Nope not one bit. That set of verses are the favorite of the Scripture alone crowd but you'll never find any where in all of Scripture to use it alone; The idea of Scripture alone is a man made idea not from God.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Nope not one bit. That set of verses are the favorite of the Scripture alone crowd but you'll never find any where in all of Scripture to use it alone; The idea of Scripture alone is a man made idea not from God.

But it doesn't say not to, right? How can you argue against something that isn't stated? That's a fools game....

 

[topcare]

But it doesn't say not to, right? How can you argue against something that isn't stated? That's a fools game....

But the Bible alone folks argue all the time that if it don't say something it ain't no good, than move the goal post when pointed out that their pet idea appears no where in Scripture. The Bible alone is no more that a Protestant tradition but not a Traditional historic item from the Church, in fact you will not find the idea of Bible alone until well after the Reformation.

How can I argue against it? Easily because even you tried to say it was in Scripture and the doctrine of Bible alone does not come down to use through Apostolic Tradition. As St. Paul says:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:15

Notice we are not instructed to go by just the Bible alone

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

What were the traditions that the apostles were teaching? The words and teachings of Christ. They weren't teaching their own doctrine or even their own understanding, they were lead by the Spirit into all understanding. The point is made when contrasted with the admonition to avoid the traditions taught by men, the doctrines of devils.

Tell me, where in the Bible do we find infant baptism? That sprinkling of water is adequate for the baptism ceremony? The Bible clearly teaches on this subject but the RC/OC and it's adherents say otherwise. Is this the tradition of Christ's teachings or the doctrines of men?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well, you can set up a strawman of different interpretations and whack away. But SS doesn't posit that.

Then how is it that all these denominations which claim to adhere to Sola Scriptura can't even agree with each other on how to make Kool-Aid?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I can show you from the Bible everything I believe... you show me what you believe from fallible men's tradition as if it being from the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century somehow gives any validity to it.