Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Dialogist]

No one in the first century was saying "hey wait - don't read the book of Mark until Paul tells you to" - Mark is recording the words of Christ in what is most likely the first Gospel account historically -- no need to wait for someone to come along 300 years later and tell you to read it.

And likewise in Act 17:11 Luke records that they "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so" without first saying 'wait a few centuries - maybe 3 or 4 centuries for the first Pope to come along and tell us if this is ok to do" .

I think everyone agrees to this basic detail.

I didn't imply that early Christians didn't read certain writings until "the saints" told them to. I was merely following your statement that books of the New Testament were included in the canon by virtue of not having been rejected by "the saints".

 

[BobRyan]

I didn't imply that early Christians didn't read certain writings until "the saints" told them to. I was merely following your statement that books of the New Testament were included in the canon by virtue of not having been rejected by "the saints".

After the fact. Those saints living at the time of the NT writers were using sola scriptura testing as we see in Mark 7 and Acts 17:11 -- no need to wait a few centuries for an ecumenical council on the subject.

So in the same way - we affirm their sola scriptura practice - by repeatedly applying it.

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68603408, member: 235244"]Nothing in Christ's statement to the magisterium in Mark 7 claims "this is not from scripture but from the church".

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Nor does Christ make the circular argument "your doctrine is unholy because it is unholy" -

This is a "not so subtle point" that keeps getting glossed over. circular arguments don't work.

Nor does Christ say "you do not have your scripture confirmed by an outside source"

Nor does Christ say "ignore the scripture I am quoting to prove you are in error"

We are talking about slamming the traditions of the church via the Mark 7 method - sola scriptura - where it is found to be in conflict with the Word of God.

[/quote]

Christ makes no appeal to Tradition in that text above - rather He appeals to scripture to hammer tradition.

No Jew in Mark 7 would respond "I see you appeal to Catholic tradition in that statement"

Thing is Bob that you are quoting 'tradition' where the Catholic church follows 'Tradition' as from the Holy Spirit!

both the Jews and the RCC claim their tradition to be holy and God-approved. Christ shows in Mark 7 how to test that claim.

 

[Goatee]

Thing is, if you didnt know, It is well known that the saints always tested what they experienced with scripture! The Catholic church does this too!

Also, a nice little link for you to digest:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scriptural-reference-guide

 

[tulipbee]

OK, got it. So we can't, in fact, rely on Scripture to authenticate itself.

According to the bible, you may not use the extra noninspired 7 books to authenticate the inspired 66 book bible. You never can't and the Protestants never will

 

[tulipbee]

Thing is, if you didnt know, It is well known that the saints always tested what they experienced with scripture! The Catholic church does this too!

Also, a nice little link for you to digest:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scriptural-reference-guide

Nope, its an epic failure. Protestants fixed it. spirit moves on

 

[Dialogist]

According to the bible, you may not use the extra noninspired 7 books to authenticate the inspired 66 book bible. You never can't and the Protestants never will

Excellent.

 

[Dialogist]

After the fact. Those saints living at the time of the NT writers were using sola scriptura testing as we see in Mark 7 and Acts 17:11 -- no need to wait a few centuries for an ecumenical council on the subject.

So in the same way - we affirm their sola scriptura practice - by repeatedly applying it.

OK, I guess my question isn't very clear.

If, as sola scriptura implies, the Bible alone is sufficient, where in the Scriptures does it say that the Gospel According to Mark and the Book of Acts should be considered to be part of the Scriptures? The Scriptures that were being searched in Acts were the Old Testament Scriptures, not the new.

 

[tulipbee]

Until you realize that many of those reading Acts and Mark - were not Christians - they were Jews and Gentiles considering the option of becoming Christian - they were not first waiting for Christians to tell them what to think -- that would be circular logic on their part.

just like many today - read the Bible as non-Christians and
en based on what the Bible says - choose to either accept or reject Christianity.

Nope, regeneration precedes faith is true. Faith precedes regeneration is false

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nope, its an epic failure. Protestants fixed it. spirit moves on

Fixed it so well that you fragmented His Church into 35000 or so fragments.

 

[Root of Jesse]

According to the bible, you may not use the extra noninspired 7 books to authenticate the inspired 66 book bible. You never can't and the Protestants never will

Who says they're noninspired? To your last statement, Protestants used to...

 

[Dialogist]

Just to add some controversy, here is the original Table of Contents of the King James Bible. It had 76 or 80 books, depending on how you associate chapters with books. You can still find editions faithful to the original if you look hard enough (http://www.christianbook.com/kjv-reference-bible-apocrypha-calfskin-black/9781107608078/pd/608072)

 

[tulipbee]

Fixed it so well that you fragmented His Church into 35000 or so fragments.

Universal Catholic church still stands and will always be that.

Who says they're noninspired? To your last statement, Protestants used to...

God did

 

[tulipbee]

View attachment 163297 Just to add some controversy, here is the original Table of Contents of the King James Bible. It had 76 or 80 books, depending on how you associate chapters with books. You can still find editions faithful to the original if you look hard enough (http://www.christianbook.com/kjv-reference-bible-apocrypha-calfskin-black/9781107608078/pd/608072)

66 still stands

 

[BobRyan]

Nope, regeneration precedes faith is true. Faith precedes regeneration is false

Some calvinists do believe that -- but most of the rest of us do not - probably because of Romans 10.

9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68603559, member: 235244"]After the fact. Those saints living at the time of the NT writers were using sola scriptura testing as we see in Mark 7 and Acts 17:11 -- no need to wait a few centuries for an ecumenical council on the subject.

So in the same way - we affirm their sola scriptura practice - by repeatedly applying it.[/QUOTE]

OK, I guess my question isn't very clear.

If, as sola scriptura implies, the Bible alone is sufficient, where in the Scriptures does it say that the Gospel According to Mark and the Book of Acts should be considered to be part of the Scriptures? The Scriptures that were being searched in Acts were the Old Testament Scriptures, not the new.

I may not have made myself clear -

Sola Scriptura means that scripture is the rule of all faith, tradition and doctrine. It does not mean that whatever level of scripture exists at the time that Christ is slamming the holy tradition of the one-true-church magisterium in Mark 7 - is the only scripture that can ever exist.

it just means that supposedly sacred holy magisterium level "tradition" can be hammered "sola scriptura" as Christ did in Mark 7 - even before Mark 7 existed.

That means that Paul can be tested - against the Bible - as in Acts 17:11 even before the text of Acts 17:11 existed.

Which is exactly how it happened in real life.

 

[BobRyan]

View attachment 163297 Just to add some controversy, here is the original Table of Contents of the King James Bible. It had 76 or 80 books, depending on how you associate chapters with books. You can still find editions faithful to the original if you look hard enough (http://www.christianbook.com/kjv-reference-bible-apocrypha-calfskin-black/9781107608078/pd/608072)

Apocrypha - means
biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture.
writings or reports not considered genuine.

I see that the KJV labels them as apocryphal rather than canonical

 

[Dialogist]

66 still stands

Excellent. Good to hear.

 

[Dialogist]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68603559, member: 235244"]After the fact. Those saints living at the time of the NT writers were using sola scriptura testing as we see in Mark 7 and Acts 17:11 -- no need to wait a few centuries for an ecumenical council on the subject.

So in the same way - we affirm their sola scriptura practice - by repeatedly applying it.

I may not have made myself clear -

Sola Scriptura means that scripture is the rule of all faith, tradition and doctrine. It does not mean that whatever level of scripture exists at the time that Christ is slamming the holy tradition of the one-true-church magisterium in Mark 7 - is the only scripture that can ever exist.

it just means that supposedly sacred holy magisterium level "tradition" can be hammered "sola scriptura" as Christ did in Mark 7 - even before Mark 7 existed.

That means that Paul can be tested - against the Bible - as in Acts 17:11 even before the text of Acts 17:11 existed.

Which is exactly how it happened in real life.[/QUOTE]

I guess I am asking how Mark came to be considered Scripture. Which book of Scripture lists the books that should be considered Scripture?

 

[Dialogist]

Apocrypha - means
biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture.
writings or reports not considered genuine.

I see that the KJV labels them as apocryphal rather than canonical

Protestants label those books "Apocrypha" in order to imply what you suggest. Actually they were called Deuterocanonical by the early Church. Books like the gnostic Gospels were labeled as apocrypha.

But you raise a good point. Scripture itself does not state which books are "canonical" and which are "apocryphal". Individual books need to be "measured" against something for authenticity (the meaning of the Greek word "canon" is "rule", as in a measuring rule). But under sola scriptura, only Scripture itself can be used as a measure.

I'm not arguing that the right measure is the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Calvin's Institutes, Benny Hinn, or alien communication from some distant planet. I am simply stating that the Bible is not auto-authenticating. Something other than the Bible has to tell you what books are in the Bible.