Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[StephanieSomer]

Nope, probably not. That's my point.

I have to agree. But, the problem then is not one of what is the final authority, but HOW that authority is interpreted. And that isn't the issue being debated. The question before us is WHAT is the authority? If an authority is misunderstood, or even deliberately misconstrued to deceive, does that in any way dissolve the authority? I say no. The authority still stands, whether it is used correctly, or not. How Scripture may be used has no bearing on it's power and authority over our practice or theology.

At Christ's judgement, will He refer to tradition, to man, or to His own Word? THAT is the final authority.

 

[Poor Beggar]

I have to agree. But, the problem then is not one of what is the final authority, but HOW that authority is interpreted. And that isn't the issue being debated. The question before us is WHAT is the authority? If an authority is misunderstood, or even deliberately misconstrued to deceive, does that in any way dissolve the authority? I say no. The authority still stands, whether it is used correctly, or not. How Scripture may be used has no bearing on it's power and authority over our practice or theology.

At Christ's judgement, will He refer to tradition, to man, or to His own Word? THAT is the final authority.

If you read my previous posts I don't believe we can completely eliminate church tradition as an authority. Its a notion that only plays out nicely in our minds. We've never done it, we just act like we have. I don't even think most protestants have bothered reading Catholic apologetics on this subject, but are quick to study their own only. There have been some brilliant men of God in the Catholic church who've written some great apologetics on this and they're available to anyone with Google. This issue isn't as simple as Protestants try to make it and Catholics tend to find the oversimplification annoying and uninformed.
Do I believe Catholicism has gone overboard with church tradition. Absolutely! I said that in my first post.

 

[Albion]

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

I'm asking you as politely and clearly as I can to reply to the explanation I gave about the difference between Tradition (the alternative to Sola Scriptura) and traditions, the customs that every church has but which do not determine their doctrines. And since you said that Calvinists are guided (in doctrine) by their traditions, I'd like even one example so that I can see if you are right.

 

[Chandler50]

Tradition is not an alternative to the Bible, they are the same thing (word of God), just in different formats.

 

[Albion]

Tradition is not an alternative to the Bible, they are the same thing (word of God), just in different formats.

That's the theory behind Sacred Tradition, but in fact, it's an alternative. Just because the church in question slaps the "Another revelation from God" sign on it doesn't make it the "same thing" as Scripture. If it's not in the Bible--which, by definition, doctrines arrived at by way of Tradition are not--it's not the same.

 

[Chandler50]

That's the theory behind Sacred Tradition, but in fact, it's an alternative. Just because the church in question slaps the "Another revelation from God" sign on it doesn't make it the "same thing" as Scripture. If it's not in the Bible--which, by definition, doctrines arrived at by way of Tradition are not--it's not the same.

This argument is greatly minimizing God's authority. Can God not give revelation in our time? If he does, how would you know if it is authentic? Anyone can make a claim of divine revelation and ensure it does not contradict the Bible before revealing it, they are called false prophets. It is through the church that Christ Himself founded that He would logically provide His revelation.

You are also extremely undermining the lengths that the church goes through with matters such as these. The church has never 'slapped' a quick seal of approval of divine revelation. It takes years of research, debate, and discernment before a decision is made. More, the decision is made by bishops who can trace their origins back to the apostles themselves.

 

[BryanW92]

I chose "Other" in the poll because I adhere to the Five Solas, of which Sola Scriptura is one.

 

[BryanW92]

Let me give you an example: "Calvinism is the gospel."

No Calvinist ever said that.

 

[Chandler50]

I chose "Other" in the poll because I adhere to the Five Solas, of which Sola Scriptura is one.

That is fine. I think most Protestants adhear to 3-5 solas.

 

[Poor Beggar]

No Calvinist ever said that.

I assume you mean no one who is REALLY a Calvinist?

 

[BryanW92]

I assume you mean no one who is REALLY a Calvinist?

The advantage of being a Calvinist is that no one who isn't a Calvinist will claim to be. The non-Calvinist churches make it a point to explain to their faithful about once a year why Calvinism is evil. When I was Methodist, I'd hear it a couple times a year!

 

[tulipbee]

We can know that holy tradition comes from God because of apostolic succession; also because it never contradicts scripture since they originate from the same source.

Where is proof that apostolic succession was never broken?

 

[tulipbee]

The bible being complete with nothing more to be added means sola scriptural. Why are we still adding to the bible?

 

[Poor Beggar]

The advantage of being a Calvinist is that no one who isn't a Calvinist will claim to be. The non-Calvinist churches make it a point to explain to their faithful about once a year why Calvinism is evil. When I was Methodist, I'd hear it a couple times a year!

I don't know about a blanket statement like that, but why hasn't a Calvinist ever said that?

 

[Chandler50]

Where is proof that apostolic succession was never broken?

You can view the entire list from the apostle St Peter to now at this link:
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=List_of_Popes

 

[Poor Beggar]

You can view the entire list from the apostle St Peter to now a link:
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=List_of_Popes

What we usually mean is, how do we know these men were really saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, and making godly decisions. History suggests otherwise.

 

[Chandler50]

What we usually mean is, how do we know these men were really saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, and making godly decisions. History suggests otherwise.

The church is infallible, not nessesarily the men. We can see this in Paul's rebuke of Peter. If the first pope could mess up, so could the rest. Humans are naturally flawed, but Christ installed the church on earth, not men.

 

[Poor Beggar]

The church is infallible, not nessesarily the men. We can see this in Paul's rebuke of Peter. If the first pope could mess up, so could the rest. Humans are naturally flawed, but Christ installed the church on earth, not men.

That doesn't really explain history. It makes a claim for knowing the internal state of various men, which only God would know. It doesn't handle the historical blunders of the Church.
BTW, I'm not attacking you, just trying to thoroughly understand your position.

 

[Chandler50]

That doesn't really explain history. It makes a claim for knowing the internal state of various men, which only God would know. It doesn't handle the historical blunders of the Church.
BTW, I'm not attacking you, just trying to thoroughly understand your position.[/QUOTE

Most of the historical blunders I have heard have been greatly exaggerated. Remember, the church as an institution installed by Christ is Holy, but men within can mess up and sin. The fact that the Church is still here after 2000 I think is a great testament to its Holiness.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Or its wealth.
Personally, I'm convinced the Scriptures teach the true church is those of faith, scattered amongst whatever dominations--including Catholicism.