Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Chandler50]

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

But how can you entrust in the authority of those scriptures without the CC? You don't know any of the apostles personally. The Bible never claims to be the totally authority, and if you believe any book that states to be authoritative what stops you from adhearing to any other religion?

 

[ebedmelech]

Let's look at how many time Jesus said "it is written"...or words to that effect in Matthew alone:

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

Matthew 4:6
and *said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’”

Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Matthew 4:10
Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”

Matthew 11:10
This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way before You.’

Matthew 15:6
he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Matthew 21:13
And He *said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den.”

Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus *said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’

Jesus held scripture above anything else! Not only to verify that which he said, but to validate Him as Messiah!

The OP basically does exactly what Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:6 above. Sola Scriptura is the only way to go...God will validate his word and put down any tradition that is held above it!

 

[Poor Beggar]

But how can you entrust in the authority of those scriptures without the CC? You don't know any of the apostles personally. The Bible never claims to be the totally authority, and if you believe any book that states to be authoritative what stops you from adhearing to any other religion?

Faith, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and fulfilled prophecy.

 

[Chandler50]

Let's look at how many time Jesus said "it is written"...or words to that effect in Matthew alone:

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

Matthew 4:6
and *said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’”

Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Matthew 4:10
Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”

Matthew 11:10
This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way before You.’

Matthew 15:6
he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Matthew 21:13
And He *said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den.”

Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus *said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’

Jesus held scripture above anything else! Not only to verify that which he said, but to validate Him as Messiah!

The OP basically does exactly what Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:6 above. Sola Scriptura is the only way to go...God will validate his word and put down any tradition that is held above it!

This is not an argument for sola scriptura. All you have stated is that Jesus utilized scripture and recognized it as authoritative. I agree. However, He did not view it as the only authority. Obviously Christ Himself is another authority that is equal to scripture because they are both God and of God.
I do not think Christ needed scripture to validate His divinity. If anything it was to help the Jews understand.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

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

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

Speaking as a Calvinist...I can't imagine why anyone would ever say that, except you, just now. I mean, it makes a great statement if you like building up a straw man and pretending he said something really stupid so you can knock him down and look like a hero, but, seriously, if you're going to superimpose bad doctrine on us couldn't you at least dress it up a little, use some big words and big ideas and make us look a little smarter? Seriously, isn't it enough to try to make us look evil, without making us look stupid, also?

 

[pat34lee]

Sola Scriptura depends on your definition as to whether or not it is true.

Ever hear of ANSI standards? Every measuring device used in certain industries in the US must be traceable back to the national standard. The micrometer and every other calibrated measuring instrument I used to work with would be tested at regular intervals using standards that were tested at higher levels regularly and so forth, all the way up to the national standard.

Every theology and tradition must begin with scripture. If it goes against any scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, then it is false and should be discarded.

 

[pat34lee]

Scripture alone is not supreme and if you look at the 1,000s of churches that have sprung up since Luther you will see that these 'churches' like to interpret scripture in their own unique way! They like to twist it to suit their needs and even change it to suit their needs. True 'Tradition' comes from the Church that Jesus started, The Catholic Church.

Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church a couple of centuries after the last apostle died.
Don't blame Jesus or Paul or Peter for that. None of them would have approved of it.

As for other churches, they never completely left the RCC. They only dropped some parts of it.

 

[HighwayMan]

For those supporting Sola Scriptura....what do you make of John 21:25, which I find to be one of the least appreciated passages in the Bible? "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Is that just an incredibly large, astronomical exaggeration....or the truth? Because if Jesus did indeed do so many other things that the entire world would not be able to fit all those records....than it means Jesus did more things that have not been written in the Bible than anyone can possibly even begin to understand. And if Jesus does something, you can trust that it's important. Therefore there are many deeds, and lessons from them, that are not available in the present version of the written down Bible we have.

 

[pat34lee]

This is not an argument for sola scriptura. All you have stated is that Jesus utilized scripture and recognized it as authoritative. I agree. However, He did not view it as the only authority. Obviously Christ Himself is another authority that is equal to scripture because they are both God and of God.
I do not think Christ needed scripture to validate His divinity. If anything it was to help the Jews understand.

You have it right but you seem to miss the point. The bible is not an end to itself. It was written so we could understand the will of God is for us to know him. Jesus came to teach us in person and to provide a way for us to approach the Father. It is all one story, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Albion]

This argument is greatly minimizing God's authority. Can God not give revelation in our time?

He CAN, but it's absurd to think that because he CAN do that, he necessarily does.

And even if we concluded that he must--for some unknown reason--be continuing to alter or amend what he gave to Mankind in his holy word, that the speculations of a few church leaders out of all the rest of Christianity and often separated by centuries in time from each other IS that revelation.

If he does, how would you know if it is authentic?

There is no way of knowing that.

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.

I'm sure that is a comforting thought, but of course there's nothing in Scripture that backs it up, so it's just something that the denomination making a self-serving claim wants its followers to believe.

So here's the point. Tradition doesn't even follow its own rules (continuity, Apostolicity, consistency)--in other words, what St. Vincent of Lerins said: "That which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all." That, according to him and those favoring Tradition, is what is the Catholic faith. But if we look at the doctrines enunciated in the name of Tradition, they were neither always believed, nor everywhere, nor by all!

Yet that which virtually ALL Christians accept as true--the 66 uncontested books of the Bible--are, by contrast, universal and ancient; and you're still saying they aren't "sufficient."

 

[Poor Beggar]

Speaking as a Calvinist...I can't imagine why anyone would ever say that, except you, just now. I mean, it makes a great statement if you like building up a straw man and pretending he said something really stupid so you can knock him down and look like a hero, but, seriously, if you're going to superimpose bad doctrine on us couldn't you at least dress it up a little, use some big words and big ideas and make us look a little smarter? Seriously, isn't it enough to try to make us look evil, without making us look stupid, also?

I think most are quoting Spurgeon.

 

[pat34lee]

For those supporting Sola Scriptura....what do you make of John 21:25, which I find to be one of the least appreciated passages in the Bible? "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Is that just an incredibly large, astronomical exaggeration....or the truth? Because if Jesus did indeed do so many other things that the entire world would not be able to fit all those records....than it means Jesus did more things that have not been written in the Bible than anyone can possibly even begin to understand. And if Jesus does something, you can trust that it's important. Therefore there are many deeds, and lessons from them, that are not available in the present version of the written down Bible we have.

I say exaggeration. The book of John has been tampered with (most likely by the early Catholic church) in several places at least because it is demonstrably wrong.

The gospels skip from his birth to when he was about 2 and the wise men came, to his bar mitzvah and then to the beginning of his ministry. Why? It wasn't important for us to know everything about those times.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Speaking as a Calvinist...I can't imagine why anyone would ever say that, except you, just now. I mean, it makes a great statement if you like building up a straw man and pretending he said something really stupid so you can knock him down and look like a hero, but, seriously, if you're going to superimpose bad doctrine on us couldn't you at least dress it up a little, use some big words and big ideas and make us look a little smarter? Seriously, isn't it enough to try to make us look evil, without making us look stupid, also?

I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. --Spurgeon

Also I'm not making anyone out to be stupid. You seem to get offended quickly.

 

[Poor Beggar]

I say exaggeration. The book of John has been tampered with (most likely by the early Catholic church) in several places at least because it is demonstrably wrong.

The gospels skip from his birth to when he was about 2 and the wise men came, to his bar mitzvah and then to the beginning of his ministry. Why? It wasn't important for us to know everything about those times.

Why do you think it's been tampered with? Also, I agree with you that we don't need to know what's unimportant.

 

[Albion]

For those supporting Sola Scriptura....what do you make of John 21:25, which I find to be one of the least appreciated passages in the Bible? "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

It means that what's contained in the books of the Bible is sufficient for God's purposes in giving us this revelation--in other words, the exact opposite idea from what the OP on this thread postulated.

Is that just an incredibly large, astronomical exaggeration....or the truth? Because if Jesus did indeed do so many other things that the entire world would not be able to fit all those records....than it means Jesus did more things that have not been written in the Bible than anyone can possibly even begin to understand. And if Jesus does something, you can trust that it's important. Therefore there are many deeds, and lessons from them, that are not available in the present version of the written down Bible we have.

You've turned the meaning upside down there. The meaning is that, although Jesus did do and say more and it's not recorded, it's not needed by us. That's because we already have the Bible which contains all that we need in order to know what it takes to be right with God.

 

[StephanieSomer]

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

It's quite obvious that you don't believe that. If you did actually believe that the two are the same, then why is there any problem in your mind with anyone holding Scripture as primary? What difference would it make? Or, IS there a difference?

 

[Chandler50]

Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church a couple of centuries after the last apostle died.
Don't blame Jesus or Paul or Peter for that. None of them would have approved of it.

As for other churches, they never completely left the RCC. They only dropped some parts of it.

This is absolutely false, what source did you get that assertion from? Many early church fathers referred to the Catholic Church as an authority and established church before many of NT scripture were written, which is obviously before Constantine was even born. Additionally, we have a documented line of succession from Jesus to Peter to now.

 

[HighwayMan]

It means that what's contained in the books of the Bible is sufficient for God's purposes in giving us this revelation--in other words, the exact opposite idea from what the OP on this thread postulated.



You've turned the meaning upside down there. The meaning is that although Jesus did more and it's not recorded, what we have in our hands in the Bible IS all that we need in order to know what it takes to be right with God.

Well, there is a difference between "having enough" and there being other important things too. I think it is a fascinating question what precisely are these things the Gospel of John is referring to, and I disagree that any of Jesus' time on Earth was not important. Even if some of it may seem less eventful than others, this is the Son of God come to Earth. I think this verse opens up the door to a lot of possibilities, and should encourage Christians to be both careful and open-minded. But I think it's not really been given the proper attention it deserves, precisely because it may open up too much discussion and debate, and church leaders do not want established beliefs and the status quo shaken up - which ironically is what Jesus did.

 

[StephanieSomer]

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.

So, if Peter, who you claim was the first pope, "messed up", how is he infallible? And, if he is not infallible, by what principle is ANY pope infallible?

 

[Chandler50]

It's quite obvious that you don't believe that. If you did actually believe that the two are the same, then why is there any problem in your mind with anyone holding Scripture as primary? What difference would it make? Or, IS there a difference?

Please do not try to interprete my intentions outside of what I have explictly stated. This is a prime example of why sola scriptura does not work. It has been thirty minutes and someone has pulled together an incorrect assumption of my writing.

This is not a problem holding scripture or tradition higher then one another, it simply does not make sense because they are the same thing. It is like saying that an author's book is more authoritative then the authors spoken words. If the both come from the author, then they hold the same merit.

It is not a question of which one is better, but rather recognizing that they both come from God and hold the same authority.