Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Albion]

Really? Does the Bible mention the issue of abortion.

Absolutely. It says that God knew us in the womb. It says that murder is a grave sin. And that's just for starters.

By the way, if you are aiming to say that Tradition handles this matter better, be mindful that the church used to approve of abortions up until quickening, so that fact would shoot holes in this particular theory about Tradition, wouldn't it?

Does the Bible mention in vitro fertilization.

Are you suggesting that it's a sin? If not, there's no issue.

Also, the Church has never changed an infallibly taught doctrine, ever. There has never been 'contradictions' ion tradition that have been taught as infallible. If you know of any please point them out.

I think you've either misunderstood or are evading the point. If Tradition were to be all you say it is, it would have to be definitive, wouldn't it? Yes. Otherwise, it's not accomplishing anything, and certainly not as much as the Bible does.

But it's not. Each church has its own idea of what ideas are covered by Tradition. Infallibility isn't the issue so much as "What does Tradition say??" Each church picks and chooses what it wants from the legends or opinions of the past. So we see that the Roman Catholic Church thinks Papal Supremacy and Infallibility are right because of Tradition. The Eastern Orthodox Churches say it's wrong because of Tradition. And the other Catholic churches have their own versions leading to doctrines that neither the RCC nor EO accept--again attributed to the witness of "Tradition."

 

[Albion]

I clearly stated that they all do accept the 66 books, and that the question is a red-herring. This is because the issue is that adhering to even one less book then what is inspired would result in only holding only a partial authority (if sola scriptura is your thing).

Whom did you have in mind that believes only 65 books are inspired?

 

[Chandler50]

By the way, if you are aiming to say that Tradition handles this matter better, be mindful that the church used to approve of abortions up until quickening, so that fact would shoot holes in this particular theory about Tradition, wouldn't it?

This is another false accusation. The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion. If you are going to make an accusation, provide some type of credible reference in your post to back up your claim.

Are you suggesting that it's a sin? If not, there's no issue.

In-vitro fertilization is morally unacceptable.

"Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . (CCC 2377)

If Tradition were to be all you say it is, it would have to be definitive, wouldn't it? Yes. Otherwise, it's not accomplishing anything, and certainly not as much as the Bible does.

It is definitive, just because you say it is not does not make it so. Christ, the apostles, and the early church fathers endorse Tradition; yet you follow a single angry monk from the 1500's. It does not make sense.

 

[Chandler50]

Whom did you have in mind that believes only 65 books are inspired?

That is not what I was asking. I said that "the issue is that adhering to even one less book then what is inspired would result in only holding only a partial authority".
This is referring to the Protestants 66 book canon; which removed seven inspired books. So the argument is that if you adhere to a 66 book canon, then you recognize only a partial authority. So the fact that most Christians recognize all 66 books is a red-herring. If you only adhere to 66 books when even one more is inspired then you only contain part of God's message. And when all Christians outside of Protestantism recognize more books as authoritative, that should raise some concern.

 

[Albion]

That is not what I was asking.

All right, but that's what it looked like to me.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion.

In-vitro fertilization is morally unacceptable.

...according to the Roman Catholic Catechism, that is. You asked about the BIBLE's teaching on the subject.

Your set out to show some reason why Sola Scriptura is insufficient to inform us of God's will, but all you are doing now when confronted with difficulties in sustaining that argument ...

...is to say that the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with it (which is no argument at all).

 

[Chandler50]

...according to the Roman Catholic Catechism, that is. You asked about the BIBLE's teaching on the subject.

I did, and you replied if I thought it was a sin. And then I gave my answer. My answer is based off all of God's methods of revelation, not just part.

 

[ebedmelech]

I did not see one verse that stated the written scripture is our only authority. Sola scriptura in not about whether the Bible is an authority; obviously it is because it is inspired by God. However, the fact that Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and installed a church on earth shows that His revelation has not ceased. Otherwise, why start a church? More, why start a church specifically left in the charge of one man? Because Christ has not ceased His revelation and uses the Church a conduit.

Fine Chandler50. The King of Kings quotes scripture as authority, but you can't see it...or don't want to...so much for that.

Carry on with your tradition over God's word.

 

[Chandler50]

Fine Chandler50. The King of Kings quotes scripture as authority, but you can't see it...or don't want to...so much for that.

Carry on with your tradition over God's word.

I literally said in my response that Christ viewed scripture as an authority. He did not however, view it as the only authority.

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matthew 28:18

But I guess this cannot be true, because scripture is the only authority. The argument just doesn't work. Viewing scripture as the only authority goes against what Christ states Himself.

 

[Albion]

I literally said in my response that Christ viewed scripture as an authority. He did not however, view it as the only authority.

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matthew 28:18

But I guess this cannot be true, because scripture is the only authority. The argument just doesn't work. Viewing scripture as the only authority goes against what Christ states Himself.

This is a ridiculous argument that makes sense only if you think that doctrinal questions will be settled if everyone just by-passed both Scripture and Tradition and instead chatted with Christ directly. Is that actually your contention?

 

[Chandler50]

This is a ridiculous argument that makes sense only if you think that doctrinal questions will be settled if everyone just chatted with Christ and got a direct answer from him. Is that actually your contention?

How did you glean that from my comment? This is very simple. They stated that scripture is the only authority. So if Christ refers to the only authority of scripture, how could he also be the authority? The answer is that God can use His authority in many ways. Through scripture, in human form on earth, through His apostles, and through His church.

Another hole in the argument that Christ refers to scripture is 'are we to only hold OT scripture as authoritative sense that is all Jesus quoted?' Obviously not. But when you make a claim that Christ viewed scripture as the only authority, then many consequences follow.

 

[Albion]

How did you glean that from my comment?

I got it from this statement of yours:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matthew 28:18

But I guess this cannot be true, because scripture is the only authority. The argument just doesn't work. Viewing scripture as the only authority goes against what Christ states Himself.

If Scripture is not the ultimate authority, what is your alternative? According to your statement above, it's what Jesus himself said. Of course, there's a problem with that. To find out what Jesus says would require you to consult the Bible, which you don't trust. So what other avenue is there but personal revelation?

 

[1213]

If Jesus intended written scripture to be the sole source of authority for His followers after His ascension, it stands to reason that He or the apostles would have made that claim...

Jesus said:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

If we want to be disciples of Jesus, we should remain in his words. His words are best found in the Bible, not from the mouth of people that don’t really respect Jesus and want to make their own doctrines that have nothing to do with teachings of Jesus.

If people would really be sola scriptura we would have just one congregation of disciples of Jesus. No pope, no priests, because Jesus said:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

Disciples of Jesus should be brothers and sisters.

Sola scriptura doesn’t lead to different sects. That happens because people take few scriptures and then from those they fabricate their own doctrine and ignore all those parts that they don’t like.

If we are not sola scriptura, it leads to many problems, because then everyone can claim whatever and tell that it is God’s will and eventually it also can lead to many sects where we have for example the leader of Catholic Church and Orthodox Church.

If we would be faithful to Jesus, we would keep only him as our leader.

 

[Albion]

Jesus said:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

If we want to be disciples of Jesus, we should remain in his words. His words are best found in the Bible, not from the mouth of people that don’t really respect Jesus and want to make their own doctrines that have nothing to do with teachings of Jesus.

If people would really be sola scriptura we would have just one congregation of disciples of Jesus. No pope, no priests, because Jesus said:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

Disciples of Jesus should be brothers and sisters.

Sola scriptura doesn’t lead to different sects. That happens because people take few scriptures and then from those they fabricate their own doctrine and ignore all those parts that they don’t like.

If we are not sola scriptura, it leads to many problems, because then everyone can claim whatever and tell that it is God’s will and eventually it also can lead to many sects where we have for example the leader of Catholic Church and Orthodox Church.

If we would be faithful to Jesus, we would keep only him as our leader.

I have to mention one little disagreement. Sola Scriptura is a concept that refers to WHAT IT IS that holds the answers to essential doctrine. There is no guarantee that comes with it that everyone who reads Scripture will understand it the same way as his neighbor does or that he'll get it right.

It's just that Scripture is where you find the answers (because it's divine revelation given for precisely that purpose). Not somewhere else that originates with humans rather than God.

 

[Chandler50]

I got it from this statement of yours:



If Scripture is not the ultimate authority, what is your alternative? According to your statement above, it's what Jesus himself said. Of course, there's a problem with that. To find out what Jesus says would require you to consult the Bible, which you don't trust. So what other avenue is there but personal revelation?

No, that is not what I was saying. I was making the point that Christ called Himself the authority, which means that He and the scriptures are an authority. Which means the scriptures alone argument does not work.

Second, I have not stated anywhere in this post that I do not trust the scriptures. Please find where I stated that I do not trust scriptures period and let me know. If you cannot, then trying and stop twisting my words. The scriptures are inspired and inherent, and I know this because the Church established by Christ discerned the canon from the rubbish that was floating around at the time.

Third, the other avenue is oral tradition handed down through apostolic succession.

 

[Albion]

No, that is not what I was saying. I was making the point that Christ called Himself the authority, which means that He and the scriptures are an authority. Which means the scriptures alone argument does not work.

In fact, that's EXACTLY why the Scriptures work.

And that's the reason for my question to you. We do not and cannot discern the Lord's guidance by each one of us talking to him on the phone. That's why he gave us the Bible.

 

[Chandler50]

Jesus said:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

If we want to be disciples of Jesus, we should remain in his words. His words are best found in the Bible, not from the mouth of people that don’t really respect Jesus and want to make their own doctrines that have nothing to do with teachings of Jesus.

If people would really be sola scriptura we would have just one congregation of disciples of Jesus. No pope, no priests, because Jesus said:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

Disciples of Jesus should be brothers and sisters.

Sola scriptura doesn’t lead to different sects. That happens because people take few scriptures and then from those they fabricate their own doctrine and ignore all those parts that they don’t like.

If we are not sola scriptura, it leads to many problems, because then everyone can claim whatever and tell that it is God’s will and eventually it also can lead to many sects where we have for example the leader of Catholic Church and Orthodox Church.

If we would be faithful to Jesus, we would keep only him as our leader.

Every verse you quotes from John refers to Christ's spoken word. Not His written word.

 

[Albion]

Every verse you quotes from John refers to Christ's spoken word. Not His written word.

Did you miss out on the fact that we know the spoken words of Christ only because we read them in the written word?

 

[Chandler50]

In fact, that's EXACTLY why the Scriptures work.

And that's the reason for my question to you. We do not and cannot discern the Lord's guidance by each one of us talking to him on the phone. That's why he gave us the Bible.

So what did people do who heard Christ speak and were saved, however were alive before the canon in the 300's? For that matter, what did any Christian do prior to the canon in the 300's. Were they all lost in how to live as a Christian because they did not have written scripture? The answer is that they had the spoken word, oral tradition given to them by the apostles. Here is a verse to support this sense that is the only authority you wish to recognize.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NRSVCE)

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

 

[Chandler50]

Did you miss out on the fact that we know the spoken words of Christ only because we read them in the written word?

Sure, that is the way we know His word, but again, to say that scripture is the only authority means that at the time Christ spoke them, they were not authority. They only became authority once His words were transcribed, that is absurd.