Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[BobRyan]

Where'd you get your authority, though? That's more important than the education you received.
You haven't shown where God said the Deuterocanonical books aren't inspired.

Your struggle with Mark 7 is not a debate over Deuteroncanonical books - it is over a text in the actual Bible canon itself.

The 66 books themselves.

 

[Root of Jesse]

canonized by common men according to the proofs already provided

Common men with the gifts of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth.

 

[BobRyan]

I didn't bring up the pope. Albion did. You did, too. Why not stay out of other's conversations?

Every post on this thread is - "in the conversation" of this thread.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What's my authority got to do with the 66 books? The patterns are completely gone in the extra books. Npo numerical proofs ast all. Totally gone. Not inspired at all. Dead books written by dead guys that never heard God. Completely gone. Fiction it is

Your authority to declare 7 books as non-Biblical, you don't have. You're beginning to sound like Yoda...

 

[Root of Jesse]

You would like us to think that "God speaks to man" is the issue here, I suppose. But it's not the topic. The topic and the issue is Sola Scriptura, which refers to the basis on which the church defines doctrines.

It is, because that's where Sacred Tradition comes from. Which refutes Sola Scriptura. The thing is, you don't use Sola Scriptura, because you can't tell from Scripture what's in the Bible and what's not in the Bible from Scripture. So your very premise of what's "Biblical" is outside of Sola Scriptura. That said, every Catholic doctrine has its basis in Scripture. Every one. You will say that this one or that one doesn't, but you'd be wrong, again.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes that is right.

The title "Refuting Sola Scriptura" means we need to defend the practice and those who oppose it need to show why Christians should abandon it.

The suffix for the title "why the Bible Alone is insufficient" is redirect reference to "scripture alone" sola scriptura -- seemingly claiming that if one were to test tradition/doctrine by the Bible they might get a false result.

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ does not hesitate to use the sola scriptura model. Which is a big surprise since the Bible is the "Word of God" and everything Christ said was also the "Word of God" --- if anyone had the right to "just quote Himself" to make his case, it was Christ. Yet even HE demonstrates for us - how the sola scriptura method is to be applied to so-called sacred/holy/infallible tradition/teaching/doctrine.

Been done over and over. The proof that the Bible alone is insufficient is that you can't agree with anyone as to what it says or means. The Bible isn't at question here, it's your interpretation. It also is about how you can excise a snippet from the Gospel and take it to mean whatever you want. We rely on the entire Bible for our doctrines.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Every post on this thread is - "in the conversation" of this thread.

Then it's not for him or you to declare something off-topic when someone else brings it up. Albion brought up the Pope, you mentioned him, too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your struggle with Mark 7 is not a debate over Deuteroncanonical books - it is over a text in the actual Bible canon itself.

The 66 books themselves.

I don't have a struggle with Mark 7. I know precisely what it says and means. The text of the actual Bible canon is only at question among protestants, Catholics know what the Bible consists of...

 

[BobRyan]

It is, because that's where Sacred Tradition comes from. Which refutes Sola Scriptura.

The Bible example of sola scriptura testing of all tradition/doctrine/practice - is demonstrated for us in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11 but more books of the Bible were written after Mark and after Acts.

Not only that -- in 1Cor 14 "everyone has a revelation".

Philip's 4 daughters - prophetesses, according to the Bible and in the case of the NT prophet Agabus not one single text of scripture written by him.

Sola Scriptura is not refuting that sort of thing. In fact 1Cor 12 and Eph 4 regarding spiritual gifts - is a sola scriptura demand for the very thing you seem to claim is refuting sola scriptura.!

 

[BobRyan]

I don't have a struggle with Mark 7. I know precisely what it says and means. .

The difference is that I appeal to it - including the "details" of Christ appealing to scripture to refute the tradition and doctrine of the magisterium of the one true nation church of his day.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Bible example of sola scriptura testing of all tradition/doctrine/practice - is demonstrated for us in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11 but more books of the Bible were written after Mark and after Acts.

Not only that -- in 1Cor 14 "everyone has a revelation".

Philip's 4 daughters - prophetesses, according to the Bible and in the case of the NT prophet Agabus not one single text of scripture written by him.

Sola Scriptura is not refuting that sort of thing. In fact 1Cor 12 and Eph 4 regarding spiritual gifts - is a sola scriptura demand for the very thing you seem to claim is refuting sola scriptura.!

So then the issue is "My interpretation is better than yours." Ephesians 4 does not uphold SS, at all. In fact, it upholds what Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The difference is that I appeal to it - including the "details" of Christ appealing to scripture to refute the tradition and doctrine of the magisterium of the one true nation church of his day.

Ignoring the first 6 verses of the chapter? And everywhere else that shows that Sacred Tradition is part of our Faith?

 

[Albion]

It is, because that's where Sacred Tradition comes from.

No, it doesn't. Nowhere to be found.

The thing is, you don't use Sola Scriptura, because you can't tell from Scripture what's in the Bible and what's not in the Bible from Scripture.

That really isn't much of an argument. You claim that your Church invented the Bible, codified the Bible, canonized the Bible, etc. and yet you also claim that we can't "tell what's in the Bible!" Well, some churchmen did canonize it, and we all have a copy, so what you're saying here just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Albion]

So then the issue is "My interpretation is better than yours." .

Uh, no it isn't. You're still insisting that we can't trust the Bible to be telling us the whole truth. Moving to interpretations is premature if we can't even agree on what we're interpreting (and despite the fact that both Catholics and Protestants SAY that they consider it to be God's revelation).

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, it doesn't. Nowhere to be found.

It's there. It helps to open your eyes and heart when you seek the Truth.

That really isn't much of an argument. You claim that your Church invented the Bible, codified the Bible, canonized the Bible, etc. and yet you also claim that we can't "tell what's in the Bible!" Well, some churchmen did canonize it, and we all have a copy, so what you're saying here just doesn't make any sense.

I don't claim we invented the Bible. We did codify it, and we know what's in it. Your brain is scrambled, or something, because you constantly get Catholic doctrine wrong, relying on what some Catholic people say or do, rather than on what the Church teaches. You know, if you kept your writing on what Anglican Church teaches, or says, I wouldn't even be involved with you. I don't criticize how you worship or what you do, or put you down for how and what you do. Even if I believe it's wrong, I don't criticize it. But when you involve what you think Catholics believe or do, then I get into it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Uh, no it isn't. You're still insisting that we can't trust the Bible to be telling us the whole truth. Moving to interpretations is premature if we can't even agree on what we're interpreting (and despite the fact that both Catholics and Protestants SAY that they consider it to be God's revelation).

I've never insisted any such thing. I believe that Scripture says what it says. It's the context and interpretation where we disagree.
Bob keeps talking about Mark 7:7-10, insisting it proves Sola Scriptura, yet before that, in verses 1-6, he's speaking to the Pharisees specifically about some Pharisaic law, which has no basis in Scripture, and ignoring the commandment to Honor your Father and Mother. That's a tradition of men, not a Sacred Tradition. So, we're arguing about what Sacred Tradition is, now.
Some Biblical examples of Sacred Tradition in use, which I cut and pasted below:
Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:
"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.

Another example of this is in the book of Jude 1:9, which says the following:

"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
This dispute, between the Archangel Michael and the devil over Moses' body, is nowhere to be found in the written text of the Old Testament.

Here are a few more:

Matthew 2:23:And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."(This "he shall be called a Nazarene" prophecy is not in written scripture anywhere).

Matthew 23:2:"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;"(Moses' seat is not mentioned anywhere in written scripture).

1 Corinthians 10:4:"and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock whichfollowed them, and the Rock was Christ." (Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that a rock "followed" the Israelites in the desert.)

2 Timothy 3:8: "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;" (These 2 individuals who opposed Moses are not written in the Old Testament).

Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (This is a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which Luther threw out of his bible in the 16th century. This story cannot be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible. It is in the Catholic Bible, and has been since the 4th century.)

 

[Albion]

It's there.

If you think so, show it to us; and don't try that business of taking the word "traditions" and saying this is a blank check for inventing anything that the church wants, out of thin air.

Your brain is scrambled, or something, because you constantly get Catholic doctrine wrong, relying on what some Catholic people say or do, rather than on what the Church teaches. You know, if you kept your writing on what Anglican Church teaches, or says, I wouldn't even be involved with you. I don't criticize how you worship or what you do, or put you down for how and what you do.

Fine, but there is no reason for you to claim that you know more about Catholicism than I do. Especially, when you make mistakes about it often.

But when you involve what you think Catholics believe or do, then I get into it.

This isn't about anyone taking gratuitous potshots at the Roman Catholic Church. THE THREAD itself is a denunciation of Protestant belief! You say you aren't putting down or criticizing Protestant beliefs but that's exactly what you are doing (logically enough, considering the topic) and what the thread is all about. You aren't in the habit of starting hostile threads yourself, but neither am I.

 

[Albion]

I've never insisted any such thing.

You're NOT saying that Sola Scriptura is insufficient for us to ascertain essential doctrine? Really?

Shall we all agree that it is sufficient, then, and all go onto something else?

I believe that Scripture says what it says. It's the context and interpretation where we disagree.
Bob keeps talking about Mark 7:7-10, insisting it proves Sola Scriptura, yet before that, in verses 1-6, he's speaking to the Pharisees specifically about some Pharisaic law, which has no basis in Scripture, and ignoring the commandment to Honor your Father and Mother.

]
That's between you and him; I have not commented on any of those details.

That's a tradition of men, not a Sacred Tradition.

Actually, it's neither.

So, we're arguing about what Sacred Tradition is, now.

Maybe that's what you think you're doing with Bob, but I'm still on the subject of this thread and your difficulty in understanding what Sola Scriptura means and what it does not mean. If that were resolved, we could move to whether Sola Scriptura is adequate for God's purposes or not. Then only would whatever Bob is pointing to be taken up. Maybe. But we're a long way from there.

Some Biblical examples of Sacred Tradition in use, which I cut and pasted below:
Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:
"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

This isn't "Sacred Tradition." If it's IN the Bible, it's included in Sola Scriptura; and "Sacred Tradition" doesn't come into play.

These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.

It's not "oral tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" either. It's IN THE BIBLE. There is nothing we need add to that.

Another example of this is in the book of Jude 1:9, which says the following:

"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
This dispute, between the Archangel Michael and the devil over Moses' body, is nowhere to be found in the written text of the Old Testament.

But it's referred to right here and you're quoting a Bible verse. So it's Scripture. The fact that it may refer back to something else doesn't change a thing about it. Everything we know about this dispute we know from Scripture Alone and there is nothing to invent in addition to this.

Matthew 2:23:And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."(This "he shall be called a Nazarene" prophecy is not in written scripture anywhere).

Matthew 23:2:"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;"(Moses' seat is not mentioned anywhere in written scripture).

1 Corinthians 10:4:"and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock whichfollowed them, and the Rock was Christ." (Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that a rock "followed" the Israelites in the desert.)

2 Timothy 3:8: "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;" (These 2 individuals who opposed Moses are not written in the Old Testament).

Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (This is a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which Luther threw out of his bible in the 16th century. This story cannot be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible. It is in the Catholic Bible, and has been since the 4th century.)

And so on. If it's in the Bible, the Scriptures have answered the matter, hence Sola Scriptura.

 

[tulipbee]

Common men with the gifts of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth.

Those extra books has been proven that it contains absolutely no pattern found in the 66 books. I've seen the numbers. I took my calculator and checked it out. The numbers match the same as in the original language of the 66 books. No authority required to use a calculator. See for yourself. Nobody is stopping ya. The extra books are absolutly dead in not having any matching patterns of the numerical facts at all. I've seen the matching numbers cause I care enough to learn the truth. You don't care. You blindly follow anything they tell ya. Your authority talk are slick words to scare people back to RCC. I don't need to follow the RCC denomination, the offspring church. I am a member of the universal Catholic church. They don't have the papal systems. The universal church is the true church. Those extra letters claims to be inspired but there's proof now before your very eyes that the holy spirit wasn't among them during writing those letters. Forget the reason why your have 73 books and the papal systems and start over and fresh and catch up with the holy spirit. I think you're a dead horse and I have no need to beat another one.

 

[BobRyan]

Josephus states emphatically that no books were added to the Jewish canon for 400 years since the time of Malachi.

That alone ends the discussion on the late-comer texts that are highly apocryphal.

http://blogs.blueletterbible.org/bl...storical-evidence-of-the-old-testament-canon/