Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Poor Beggar]

this is why sola scriptura cultivates so many skilled militant athiests who sound like christian theologians doing concept replacement therapy with the same logical formulas. Sola scriptura allows the flesh to control the phenomena through being right, being better than others, this is the pattern of the world, this is also why I don't look at sola scriptura as a godly idea.

It absolutely CAN do this. It doesn't have to. The flesh can corrupt church tradition as well.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It absolutely CAN do this. It doesn't have to. The flesh can corrupt church tradition as well.

I Have observed this as well.

One source of godly knowledge is looking at these traditions and reconstructing the original in your own life practice.

 

[Chandler50]

Sola scriptura is a protestant invention. Jesus and his apostles quoted tradition. A lot of people don't know that. However, the protestants came up with the idea for a reason. Thd church was going to crazy town. I think the balance is stick to the bible when the bible gives the answer. Use church history to fill in the gaps, recognizing the great men of God were filled with the Holy Spirit in the past. We have to be really careful with church tradition, but protestants need to stop pretending they don't use various councils as tradition. They also quote Reformed writers as if they were special "saints". It's so overdone its sickening.
That's my take.

Excellent post, that is a very balanced position.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Excellent post, that is a very balanced position.

I get tired of protestants persecuting Catholics for the same things they're doing themselves. Walk into any protestant church's bookstore on Sunday morning and you'll see shelves full of the writers of our tradtions. Nobody fully jetisons tradition because we need a practical handrail to carry out the day to day religion. Both sides are using church tradition. Catholics are just being honest about it.
Both sides need to do it less too.

 

[Goatee]

Sola scriptura is a protestant invention. Jesus and his apostles quoted tradition. A lot of people don't know that. However, the protestants came up with the idea for a reason. Thd church was going to crazy town. I think the balance is stick to the bible when the bible gives the answer. Use church history to fill in the gaps, recognizing the great men of God were filled with the Holy Spirit in the past. We have to be really careful with church tradition, but protestants need to stop pretending they don't use various councils as tradition. They also quote Reformed writers as if they were special "saints". It's so overdone its sickening.
That's my take.

Great post

 

[Albion]

How is this a valid argument?

To trust the Bible over something said by a second or third or even fifth century church leader? I'd think that would be almost obvious, not to say "valid."

It states in your quote that the Pope Clement VIII moved three books not found in the Council of Trent. We have never added or took away from the Bible after the Council of Rome established the canon.

Well, there's some misunderstanding at work there. You seem to be under the impression that the Pope merely rearranged the books. That's not what happened and not what the article said.

The canon was indeed changed in the 16th century. It wasn't changed much, it's true, but any change nullifies your argument about the Holy Spirit or the Church having made an inerrant and eternal decision on the contents back in the 4th century.

 

[High Fidelity]

Mod

Thread has been moved from Controversial Theology to General Theology.

Mod​

 

[Chandler50]

To trust the Bible over something said by a second or third or even fifth century church leader? I'd think that would be almost obvious, not to say "valid."


Well, there's some misunderstanding at work there. You seem to be under the impression that the Pope merely rearranged the books. That's not what happened and not what the article said.

The canon was indeed changed in the 16th century. It wasn't changed much, it's true, but any change nullifies your argument about the Holy Spirit or the Church having made an inerrant and eternal decision on the contents back in the 4th century.

Can you please explain what change in the canon you are referring to? Specifically what books do you claim were added or taken away from the canon? Because the only works that you quoted were:

• Prayer of Manasses
• 3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible)
• 4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible)

These three written works were moved to the appendix of the Vulgate by Pope Clement VIII. They were not and are not considered inspired by God, but rather simply good for spiritual growth.

I think you may be misunderstanding the Vulgate. The Vulgate is the latin translation of the Bible, but it is not equivilient to the canon. No Council has ever recognized the cononicity of those three written works. However, they were included in the original Vulgate so everyone would have access to them.

 

[Albion]

I get tired of protestants persecuting Catholics for the same things they're doing themselves. Walk into any protestant church's bookstore on Sunday morning and you'll see shelves full of the writers of our tradtions. Nobody fully jetisons tradition because we need a practical handrail to carry out the day to day religion. Both sides are using church tradition. Catholics are just being honest about it.
Both sides need to do it less too.

This ^ is to confuse traditions with "Tradition."

Yes, every church has its traditions--candles, Christmas Eve caroling, blessing the crops, whatever.

That is not what we're discussing.

Those churches that do not believe in the Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) believe instead in what's called Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. This has already been referred to in this thread.

The question is on what it is that gives us the ultimate or final guidance on matters of doctrine. Is it the Bible only...or is it the Bible along with "Sacred Tradition?" And, no, Sacred Tradition doesn't say that Christmas caroling is a doctrine. Sacred Tradition, as the alternative to the Bible Alone, means a supposedly continuous consensus throughout Church history that accepts some doctrine as being given by the Holy Spirit ALTHOUGH its not clearly indicated in Scripture.

IOW, when you walk into the Christian (read, Protestant) bookstore, what you see are not doctrines on the shelves. They're artifacts and the like that are traditionally used or valued by some churches. It's NOT Sacred Tradition. The terms merely look similar.

 

[Albion]

Can you please explain what change in the canon you are referring to? Specifically what books do you claim were added or taken away from the canon? Because the only works that you quoted were:

• Prayer of Manasses
• 3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible)
• 4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible)

These three written works were moved to the appendix of the Vulgate by Pope Clement VIII. They were not and are not considered inspired by God, but rather simply good for spiritual growth.

That's a valid comment, but the importance of this is that Scripture, as used in the Roman Church, is not above being altered, either. And yet the idea that it IS was one of your supposed proofs against Scripture Alone.

 

[Tangible]

I get tired of protestants persecuting Catholics for the same things they're doing themselves. Walk into any protestant church's bookstore on Sunday morning and you'll see shelves full of the writers of our tradtions. Nobody fully jetisons tradition because we need a practical handrail to carry out the day to day religion. Both sides are using church tradition. Catholics are just being honest about it.
Both sides need to do it less too.

This post is laboring under a misapprehension of what Sola Scriptura actually is. SS does not jettison tradition, and as you may have guessed, SS actually IS a tradition. SS simply is a method of interpreting and weighing tradition according to the one unchangeable standard God has provided to his Church: The Holy Scriptures.

 

[Poor Beggar]

This ^ is to confuse traditions with "Tradition."

Yes, every church has its traditions--candles, Christmas Eve caroling, blessing the crops, whatever.

That is not what we're discussing.

Those churches that do not believe in the Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) believe instead in what's called Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. This has already been referred to in this thread.

The question is on what it is that gives us the ultimate or final guidance on matters of doctrine. Is it the Bible only...or is it the Bible along with "Sacred Tradition?" And, no, Sacred Tradition doesn't say that Christmas caroling is a doctrine. Sacred Tradition, as the alternative to the Bible Alone, means a supposedly continuous consensus throughout Church history that accepts some doctrine as being given by the Holy Spirit ALTHOUGH its not clearly indicated in Scripture.

IOW, when you walk into the Christian (read, Protestant) bookstore, what you see are not doctrines on the shelves. They're artifacts and the like that are traditionally used or valued by some churches. It's NOT Sacred Tradition. The terms merely look similar.

I believe that's exactly what Calvinists do. They just can't seem to see it.

 

[Poor Beggar]

This post is laboring under a misapprehension of what Sola Scriptura actually is. SS does not jettison tradition, and as you may have guessed, SS actually IS a tradition. SS simply is a method of interpreting and weighing tradition according to the one unchangeable standard God has provided to his Church: The Holy Scriptures.

Through the lens of _______.
Let me give you an example: "Calvinism is the gospel."
A catholic can see that for what it is, but most of the Protestant church can't.

 

[Albion]

I believe that's exactly what Calvinists do. They just can't seem to see it.

What does this have to do with the topic, though? If Calvinists like their religious customs, what does that say about Sola Scriptura, if anything?? And why are we suddenly focusing on Calvinists?

 

[Poor Beggar]

What does this have to do with the topic, though? If Calvinists like their religious customs, what does that say about Sola Scriptura, if anything?? And why are we suddenly focusing on Calvinists?

Because we are accusing Catholics of doing the same exact thing Calvinists do--interpreting Scripture through the lens of traditions of men. If you can't see the correlation, you're probably doing it.

 

[Chandler50]

Agreed

 

[StephanieSomer]

Through the lens of _______.
Let me give you an example: "Calvinism is the gospel."
A catholic can see that for what it is, but most of the Protestant church can't.

You could just as easily substitute "Catholicism" for "Calvinism". Would a catholic THEN recognize it?

 

[Poor Beggar]

You could just as easily substitute "Catholicism" for "Calvinism". Would a catholic THEN recognize it?

Nope, probably not. That's my point.

 

[Albion]

Because we are accusing Catholics of doing the same exact thing Calvinists do--interpreting Scripture through the lens of traditions of men. If you can't see the correlation, you're probably doing it.

Oh stop. Did you read the explanation I gave about how "Tradition" is different from "traditions?"

If that still doesn't make sense, please answer me this:

What traditions that Calvinists hold dear have been made by them into essential doctrines although there is no Biblical warrant for them AND they say it's not necessary to have any because their customs have the hand of God upon them just as well as if they were in the Bible??

If you know of some and can point us to them, you'll prove me wrong. If not, I'm BEGGING you to consider the difference between Tradition and traditions.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Oh stop.

I'm not sure why I should "stop", or what the little emoticon is for.
Are you used to just getting your way?