Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

Evidently those extant writings did not closely examine Psalm 119. That Psalm in itself is sufficient evidence that the written Word of God is SOLELY SUFFICIENT for every spiritual need. The only reason Sola Scriptura is opposed is because it brings down the house of cards called "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition".

We know that the Word of God is sufficient. What we disagree on is what constitutes the Word of God. Does the Holy Spirit's word, which is never written, count? Sola Scriptura is opposed because it is a recent (relatively) innovation which never before had been used.

 

[Job8]

We know that the Word of God is sufficient. What we disagree on is what constitutes the Word of God. Does the Holy Spirit's word, which is never written, count? Sola Scriptura is opposed because it is a recent (relatively) innovation which never before had been used.

If what you say is true, then we would not find a precedent in Scripture indicating that the written Word of God was sufficient. But we do have a very solid precedent (Acts 17:10-13). What was orally preached as "the Word of God" was confirmed only by the written Scriptures (the Tanakh):

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

 

[Wgw]

Evidently those extant writings did not closely examine Psalm 119. That Psalm in itself is sufficient evidence that the written Word of God is SOLELY SUFFICIENT for every spiritual need. The only reason Sola Scriptura is opposed is because it brings down the house of cards called "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition".

No, that is not what that Psalm means. If it did mea that it would exclude the New Testament and probably itself; since there is no table of contents anywhere in Scripture all questions of canonicity are based on tradition. Even chapter and versification is traditional, which is why Psalm 119 in the Masoretic Text is Psalm 118 in the much older Septuagint.

The problem with the approach you take is that you fail to examine fully the entire set of consequences of your preferred theological interpretation. It seems to me to be primarily driven by a certain horror of Roman Catholicism as opposed to any actual intellectual study of the early church and what it actually believed, and unfortunately the words of scripture can be distorted by people to mean whatever they want it to mean, which is why there are so many diverse Protestant denominations.

 

[tulipbee]

You may think you're just an observer, but you certainly have the free choice to turn away.

I observe turning away. Like being the last dominio, I fell cause the domino beside me fell on me causing me to fall over. Go tips the first domino long time ago. What causes produces effects. The effects causes more effects. Like did the chicken come first for did the egg come first. Did the cause come first or did the effect come first. Free wills are made for the blinds so they can invent thier own religion like yours. If I turned away its because circumstances arranged around me cause me to take vacation. God arranges circumstances and that makes free will impossible. I would probably turn away if I listened to you but it would be your fault but then again God already made you fall.

 

[Wgw]

If what you say is true, then we would not find a precedent in Scripture indicating that the written Word of God was sufficient. But we do have a very solid precedent (Acts 17:10-13). What was orally preached as "the Word of God" was confirmed only by the written Scriptures (the Tanakh):

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

None of these quotations validate the "sola" element in sola scriptura; they are mere eisegetical prooftexts which ignore counterproofs that support tradition. Also I have this nagging fear that you would interpret John 1:1 as meaning the Bible was uncreated - in a great many places the phrase "the word of God" should be correctly understood as referring to the incarnate Logos - Christ, rather than mere scripture, which reflects the Word but is not the Word in the sense of John 1:1.

 

[Wgw]

I observe turning away. Like being the last dominio, I fell cause the domino beside me fell on me causing me to fall over. Go tips the first domino long time ago. What causes produces effects. The effects causes more effects. Like did the chicken come first for did the egg come first. Did the cause come first or did the effect come first. Free wills are made for the blinds so they can invent thier own religion like yours. If I turned away its because circumstances arranged around me cause me to take vacation. God arranges circumstances and that makes free will impossible. I would probably turn away if I listened to you but it would be your fault but then again God already made you fall.

So how is it then that John Calvin did not simply invent his own religion? What does a vindictive Genevan lawyer have on fifteen centuries of authentically pious Christians?

 

[tulipbee]

So how is it then that John Calvin did not simply invent his own religion? What does a vindictive Genevan lawyer have on fifteen centuries of authentically pious Christians?

Calvin backed his thoughts with bible quotes. Men can be lost for 1500 years and still lost. Some may always be lost being unregenerated that prevents him from believing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If what you say is true, then we would not find a precedent in Scripture indicating that the written Word of God was sufficient. But we do have a very solid precedent (Acts 17:10-13). What was orally preached as "the Word of God" was confirmed only by the written Scriptures (the Tanakh):

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

Actually, what you're reporting is that they received the spoken word of God (spoken by Paul). The scriptures they searched were Old Testament.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I observe turning away. Like being the last dominio, I fell cause the domino beside me fell on me causing me to fall over. Go tips the first domino long time ago. What causes produces effects. The effects causes more effects. Like did the chicken come first for did the egg come first. Did the cause come first or did the effect come first. Free wills are made for the blinds so they can invent thier own religion like yours. If I turned away its because circumstances arranged around me cause me to take vacation. God arranges circumstances and that makes free will impossible. I would probably turn away if I listened to you but it would be your fault but then again God already made you fall.

So "Go" committed evil by tipping the first domino? Free will impossible? If free will is impossible, then God is a god like the Islamic Allah. Mankind is slave to God. Nope. God is our Father, and he allows us to have what we love the most, whether its's Him or something else.
In other words, it's your free choice to turn away, and also your choice to turn back. God is not a puppet master.

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68661901, member: 235244"]It wasn't unchanged to some. When they received the word, they received the word of Paul.
Mark 7, in it's entirety, not removing or adding to it, does not speak to Sola Scriptural.[/QUOTE]

Can you prove that speculative claim -- since in real life we 'see' Christ using Sola Scriptura to prove to the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - that their supposedly holy, sacred, infallible tradition was flawed.

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.[/QUOTE]

I contend that those verses do not in any sense constitute an endorsement of Sola Scriptura, and my contention is aided by the fact that no extant writings from the early church suggest they do;...

that were so actual exegesis of any kind in that post of yours - I think we both would agree to that.

Can you demonstrate that your contention in that regard survives the details "in the text"?? Your argument confines itself to avoiding the details in the text so far.

Your appeal to later tradition as your only argument for your POV is hardly satisfying the requirement to sustain your prior claim that "sola scripture does not pass its own test" given that we actually have it in Mark 7 and your only solution is to wait a few hundred years after that for some Catholic council to not notice that detail.

Wouldn't you already have to "be" in the anti-sola-scriptura camp to be satisfied with that sort of proof against Mark 7??

What if the Jews in Mark 7 used your tactic? Entirely avoiding the details in the statements made by Christ in Mark 7 - and simply circling back to their own tradition?

What teaching of Christ "could not be rejected" using such a method??

Alas BobRyan I think you know well that I cannot give you what you want,

Indeed - you seem to prefer to avoid exegesis at all costs as you avoid the details in the text under discussion.

because the Orthodox regard the tradition that surrounds the text and the text itself as part of the same tradition.

Indeed by conflating all the various options into one large mass of 'tradition' you need to avoid the text itself at all costs - because in the actual text Jesus contrasts scripture with tradition... a feature of his argument that one cannot even admit 'exists' when taking the path of such extreme conflation.

Your own denominatin Inshould lament to point out regards thenwritings of Ellen G White as an authoritative source of meta-data regarding the scriptural text;

If your argument here is that I am quoting Ellen White and not Mark 7 details - just as you are avoiding Mark 7 details and appealing to centuries late - tradition... then once again i think you have come up with yet another speculative assertion that "does not survive the details" as we see them in the text of these posts.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68661883, member: 235244"]1. Jerome was translating from Hebrew and Aramaic - not from the Greek LXX.
2. The post from me Today at 8:50 AM #852 that you quote in your post - was not arguing against the LXX being used by Greek Christian - if you find something in my post saying that the LXX was rejected by Greek Christians - please point to it.

On the contrary we show Christ actually using it in Mark 7:6-13.

And we show it approved of by the church in Acts 17:11.

Thus "sola scriptura" meets its own criteria.

[/QUOTE]

Pretty much -- irrefutable.

The LXX contained certain books. Jerome translated those books, which were in the LXX, from their original language.
No, you don't.
No, you don't.
No, it doesn't.

Once again you prefer to differ while providing no evidence at all in support of your choice. In fact you provide the self conflicted statement that Jerome is translating the books in the LXX -- not using the LXX but rather using the actual Hebrew and Aramaic - the very Hebrew and Aramaic claim that I stated in my post above.

You demonstrate of course that you have free will and can choose to ignore all the evidence provided. And I have never challenged your ability in that regard. We all have free will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tulipbee]

So "Go" committed evil by tipping the first domino? Free will impossible? If free will is impossible, then God is a god like the Islamic Allah. Mankind is slave to God. Nope. God is our Father, and he allows us to have what we love the most, whether its's Him or something else.
In other words, it's your free choice to turn away, and also your choice to turn back. God is not a puppet master.

God pulls my strings and leads me where he wants me to go. When God is in control, He can guarantee His promises. There are no maverick atom running loose. Not a single one of them

 

[Job8]

Actually, what you're reporting is that they received the spoken word of God (spoken by Paul). The scriptures they searched were Old Testament.

Correct. And they verified the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God and confirmed that there were no discrepancies. They did not turn to the rabbis ("Holy Tradition") and ask them to confirm the truth of God's Word. Their SOLA SCRIPTURA was the Tanakh.

Someone else is trying to dodge the full import of Psalm 119. David was a prophet, therefore this psalm is actually the words of God written by David, hence it also anticipates the New Testament (where Peter equates ALL of Paul's epistles with Scripture). This psalm is not merely David's musings about the Tanakh. It is the longest psalm in the Bible and its entire focus is the Word of God. When David says "Forever O LORD, thy Word is settled in Heaven" that in itself is a statement to support Sola Scriptura. And we could go into this psalm verse by verse and word by word, and that would be the logical conclusion.

 

[BobRyan]

Correct. And they verified the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God and confirmed that there were no discrepancies. They did not turn to the rabbis ("Holy Tradition") and ask them to confirm the truth of God's Word. Their SOLA SCRIPTURA was the Tanakh.

Someone else is trying to dodge the full import of Psalm 119. David was a prophet, therefore this psalm is actually the words of God written by David, hence it also anticipates the New Testament (where Peter equates ALL of Paul's epistles with Scripture). This psalm is not merely David's musings about the Tanakh. It is the longest psalm in the Bible and its entire focus is the Word of God. When David says "Forever O LORD, thy Word is settled in Heaven" that in itself is a statement to support Sola Scriptura. And we could go into this psalm verse by verse and word by word, and that would be the logical conclusion.

It is a strong statement that God's word should not be cast aside, deleted, assumed-dead and abolished etc.

But Is 8:20 is in my opinion the "sola scriptura" commandment of the OT.

20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[BobRyan]

So "Go" committed evil by tipping the first domino? Free will impossible? If free will is impossible, then God is a god like the Islamic Allah. Mankind is slave to God. Nope. God is our Father, and he allows us to have what we love the most, whether its's Him or something else.
In other words, it's your free choice to turn away, and also your choice to turn back. God is not a puppet master.

Indeed -- if all the world is mindless domino simply responding to its environment then God "preprogrammed" ISIS to kill Christians -- they did not actually choose to do it out of anything other than chemistry and pre-programmed directives.

But if God is quite a bit "more infinite" than that -- and can actually create free will intelligent beings - well then ,,, that is another matter altogether, and then God is not the cause and designer of sin - but rather blame is rightly placed on those who choose it.

 

[Wgw]

Calvin backed his thoughts with bible quotes. Men can be lost for 1500 years and still lost. Some may always be lost being unregenerated that prevents him from believing.

Yes, except "by their fruits ye shall know them." Calvinism starting with Calvin personally produced bitter wars with Catholics and Lutherans, burnings of witches and so on; the Calvinist countries of Europe were trounced in terms of arts, culture, humanitarian concerns, et cetera, by their Lutheran, Catholic and Orthodox neighbors.

On the other hand, St. Basil the Great invented the modern hospital. St. Athanasius defended the divinity of Christ. Centuries previously, Ss. Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin Martyr humiliated the corrupt principate of Rome.

 

[Wgw]

No BobRyan, my point is that its silly for you to passionately defend something your own denomination disregards.

If you think that Orthodox and RCs elevate tradition above scripture, you are mistaken. It provides interpretive context. Anglicans also use it along with reason to interpret scripture.

So basically like Ellen White in your denomination.

 

[tulipbee]

Yes, except "by their fruits ye shall know them." Calvinism starting with Calvin personally produced bitter wars with Catholics and Lutherans, burnings of witches and so on; the Calvinist countries of Europe were trounced in terms of arts, culture, humanitarian concerns, et cetera, by their Lutheran, Catholic and Orthodox neighbors.

On the other hand, St. Basil the Great invented the modern hospital. St. Athanasius defended the divinity of Christ. Centuries previously, Ss. Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin Martyr humiliated the corrupt principate of Rome.

RCC killed a L O T of Christians. They invented the burning stake. They were jealous of the true truth being discovered.

 

[tulipbee]

Indeed -- if all the world is mindless domino simply responding to its environment then God "preprogrammed" ISIS to kill Christians -- they did not actually choose to do it out of anything other than chemistry and pre-programmed directives.

But if God is quite a bit "more infinite" than that -- and can actually create free will intelligent beings - well then ,,, that is another matter altogether, and then God is not the cause and designer of sin - but rather blame is rightly placed on those who choose it.

Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven.
Charles Spurgeon
........

"The Papists … hold that man, through his own free will, returns to God; and on this point is our greatest contest with them at this day."

"Concerning that this clown babbleth of free will, it is sufficiently rejected throughout the whole scripture."

"Faith is a special gift of God, which proceedeth not from our free will."

"Let that ethical philosophy therefore of free-will be far from a Christian mind."

"No free will of man can resist Him that willeth to save."

......calvin

 

[tulipbee]

No BobRyan, my point is that its silly for you to passionately defend something your own denomination disregards.

If you think that Orthodox and RCs elevate tradition above scripture, you are mistaken. It provides interpretive context. Anglicans also use it along with reason to interpret scripture.

So basically like Ellen White in your denomination.

Interpretation of traditions of RCC is like interpreting tongues of Pentecostals. Both comes out of the mouths of men.