Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[tulipbee]

If the 66 book bible were breathed by God, written by God and completed by God and sealed by God then word stands alone . what's the point in adding to the complete bible when the bible said don't add to it? God said don't add to His Word

 

[Albion]

If the 66 book bible were breathed by God, written by God and completed by God and sealed by God then word stands alone . what's the point in adding to the complete bible when the bible said don't add to it? God said don't add to His Word

I believe you're referring to a line in the Book of Revelation which speaks of adding to that book only.

 

[tulipbee]

I believe you're referring to a line in the Book of Revelation which speaks of adding to that book only.

Can you rephrase that?

 

[Albion]

Can you rephrase that?

I think your statement about not adding to the Bible is based on a verse in the Book of Revelation which actually says that nothing should be added to that particular revelation (not to the whole of the Bible).

 

[tulipbee]

I

I think your statement about not adding to the Bible is based on a verse in the Book of Revelation which actually says that nothing should be added to that particular revelation (not to the whole of the Bible).

I meant all of 66 books

 

[Albion]

You wrote:

"...what's the point in adding to the complete bible when the bible said don't add to it? God said don't add to His Word."

Where in the Bible does it say not to add to the Bible?

 

[tulipbee]

You wrote:

"...what's the point in adding to the complete bible when the bible said don't add to it? God said don't add to His Word."

Let's hope a Redditian can answer that one for me

Where in the Bible does it say not to add to the Bible?

 

[BobRyan]

I think your statement about not adding to the Bible is based on a verse in the Book of Revelation which actually says that nothing should be added to that particular revelation (not to the whole of the Bible).

Indeed - no edition/changes may be made to any book of the Bible according to that application of Rev 22. Which is correct.

However John writes the gospel of John back in Ephesus after writing the book of Revelation - on the isle of Patmos - he was not breaking his own text -- I think most would agree to that.

 

[BobRyan]

You came pretty close to defining it right there--Scripture Alone is the defining authority for determining doctrine. It does not mean any of the other notions that opponents of SS (and those who simply don't know what it means) often say about it. For example, that it means everyone is free to believe whatever he personally thinks, or that tradition has no place in church life, or that SS means you cannot do anything unless it's specifically approved of somewhere in the Bible.

That is true. the point of Is 8:20 testing is the same as we see in Mark 7:6-13 and the same as in Acts 17:11 where all doctrine and teaching is vetted/tested against existing scripture to see if scripture condemns it or permits it. It does not say that no Bible writer was allowed to add inspired letters after Isaiah 8:20 or after Acts 17:11 or after 2Tim 3:16 or after Mark 7:6013 etc.

The entire point of the Protestant reformers was that a least some doctrine and/or tradition of the Catholic church is condemned by scripture.

For example:

"Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
"Through the LAW comes the knowledge of sin" Romans 3

So it is God that determines what is or is not sin.

Now suppose some man-made tradition pops up saying "it is now a sin if men should wear any shoe other than a red shoe" -- well that would be a man-made-tradition presuming to set itself up as equal to the LAW of God and able to invent new definitions of "sin".

Another Example:

On the other hand - we can say that it is a sin for someone to act out of anger/spite/meanness and run over his neighbor's pet with a car . And even though "cars" are not in the bible -- it appeals to the Bible LAW about "Love your neighbor as your self" and a few other laws as well.

Another Example:
Someone may invent the idea of re-incarnation for Christians - and claim that after we die we may come back as cows or horses if we still need time to work out some issues etc.

The bible does not use the word "reincarnation" but in Heb 9 it does say "it is appointed unto man once to die and then comes the judgment" and from that one example we may concluded that the reincarnation doctrine they are suggesting is in fact error.

====================================

Now in the examples chosen - very few would find reason to object - but the examples could have been chosen where a whole raft of objectors could be had. I am simply pointing to the principle.

 

[Standing Up]

If the 66 book bible were breathed by God, written by God and completed by God and sealed by God then word stands alone . what's the point in adding to the complete bible when the bible said don't add to it? God said don't add to His Word

It's an interesting question about whether John was referring only to Revelation or to the whole NT. In the OT, we find the same command at Deut. 12:32 not to add or subtract.

Based on the idea that we believers are built on foundation of prophets (OT) and apostles (NT), I favor the understanding of a sealed canon.

 

[BobRyan]

It's an interesting question about whether John was referring only to Revelation or to the whole NT. In the OT, we find the same command at Deut. 12:32 not to add or subtract.

Based on the idea that we believers are built on foundation of prophets (OT) and apostles (NT), I favor the understanding of a sealed canon.

I favor a sealed canon - but I do not agree that Revelation is the last book written. Rather the Gospel of John is last.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's an interesting question about whether John was referring only to Revelation or to the whole NT. In the OT, we find the same command at Deut. 12:32 not to add or subtract.

Both of those commands are narrowly focused. That's no argument for modifying the canon (or the contents thereof), merely the acknowledgement those commands are not necessarily absolute. If they were, the mere existence of the NT canon is tough to justify, not to mention any NT books written after Revelation (and there could have been some).

I favor the understanding of a sealed canon.

Ditto but not because there's some command saying so printed in Sacred Scripture itself.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I don't know why it would. The definition as given clearly included the word "Alone."

I think the problem is that this thread from the OP intermixes authorities in the church with scriptural authority. Most all churches have authorities; teachers, deacons, pastors, bishops. When I write scripture is supreme, I mean over other authorities in the church. That means as Acts17:11 says, to test everything that anyone says in the church against scripture.

The supremacy of scripture over authorities in the church does not imply that other methods may be used to generate spiritual truths and that scripture is just the highest. That is Prima scriptura. So in regards to spiritual truths sufficient to salvation, scripture alone is recognized.

In regard to traditions, Martin Luther did place value on traditions in the practice of faith and the understanding of scripture, just not to extend scripture.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The Orthodox would disagree with this interpretation. Yes, we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, no, this does not mean Protestants are inherently damned.

So if Sola Scriptura is sufficient for salvation, what does a non-Protestant think it not sufficient for?

Why did a Catholic start a war against Protestants with an inflammatory thread title if certain doctrinal differences are not important for salvation?

 

[Standing Up]

Both of those commands are narrowly focused. That's no argument for modifying the canon (or the contents thereof), merely the acknowledgement those commands are not necessarily absolute. If they were, the mere existence of the NT canon is tough to justify, not to mention any NT books written after Revelation (and there could have been some).

Again, the idea of a closed canon makes sense, if we agree with the assumption of God's voice via OT prophets and NT apostles (see Heb. 1:1-3).

Ditto but not because there's some command saying so printed in Sacred Scripture itself.

RC cannot have and never will have a sealed canon given that their Tradition is ever continuing (think Marian dogmas).

Besides, RC very definition of "God's word" is both written and oral. There is no sense of a closed canon given their definition. Sorta funny actually.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Again, the idea of a closed canon makes sense,

Indeed it does but not because of the Scriptural passages you cited. Those passages warn against modifying those specific texts. They say nothing about editing the entire Scriptural canon. In order to do so, they would logically need to define what the Scriptural canon is. Clearly those passages make no attempt to do so. And that is ultimately for the good since the literal application you supply for the OT passage would invalidate the canonicity of the entire NT.

RC cannot have and never will have a sealed canon given that their Tradition is ever continuing (think Marian dogmas).

The Catholic Church can and the Catholic Church does. Invoking infallibility does not somehow categorize, say, a papal encyclical as Sacred Scripture. Papal encyclicals are papal encyclicals. Sacred Scripture is Sacred Scripture. The two are not the same thing.

Besides, RC very definition of "God's word" is both written and oral. There is no sense of a closed canon given their definition. Sorta funny actually.

It's only "funny" if you don't understand what Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are. All due respect but I'm not sure you recognize the distinction between the two. A core Catholic teaching is that God speaks to the world through the Catholic Church and Holy Scripture rather than just Holy Scripture alone. This, however, does not mean the Church considers herself at liberty to classify, say, Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae encyclical as Scripture.

 

[Rick Otto]

Redefinition allows us to say whatever we want and then claim it means whatever we want.

 

[Albion]

I think the problem is that this thread from the OP intermixes authorities in the church with scriptural authority. Most all churches have authorities; teachers, deacons, pastors, bishops. When I write scripture is supreme, I mean over other authorities in the church. That means as Acts17:11 says, to test everything that anyone says in the church against scripture.

The supremacy of scripture over authorities in the church does not imply that other methods may be used to generate spiritual truths and that scripture is just the highest. That is Prima scriptura. So in regards to spiritual truths sufficient to salvation, scripture alone is recognized.

In regard to traditions, Martin Luther did place value on traditions in the practice of faith and the understanding of scripture, just not to extend scripture.

I feel like this only adds to the confusion you are referring to. No, Sola Scriptura doesn't rule out using church tradition as an aid to understanding Scripture, and there is no question of the church "authorities" trumping Scripture if we say we adhere to Sola Scriptura.

The role of such people--deacons, bishops, etc.--is not to add to Scripture or be its equal, but to be administrators in accordance with Scripture and the duties of their respective offices.

So, let's get away from second-guessing the meaning of Sola Scriptura while we're engaged in discussing whether there's anything other than Scripture that is needed in order to know God's will and intentions for his church.

 

[tulipbee]

Indeed it does but not because of the Scriptural passages you cited. Those passages warn against modifying those specific texts. They say nothing about editing the entire Scriptural canon. In order to do so, they would logically need to define what the Scriptural canon is. Clearly those passages make no attempt to do so. And that is ultimately for the good since the literal application you supply for the OT passage would invalidate the canonicity of the entire NT.

The Catholic Church can and the Catholic Church does. Invoking infallibility does not somehow categorize, say, a papal encyclical as Sacred Scripture. Papal encyclicals are papal encyclicals. Sacred Scripture is Sacred Scripture. The two are not the same thing.

It's only "funny" if you don't understand what Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are. All due respect but I'm not sure you recognize the distinction between the two. A core Catholic teaching is that God speaks to the world through the Catholic Church and Holy Scripture rather than just Holy Scripture alone. This, however, does not mean the Church considers herself at liberty to classify, say, Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae encyclical as Scripture.

If Peter ordianed two, then two ordains two more, then how many ordianed popes will we have 2,000 years later and how many trees do we kill to record the ordianed on paper?

 

[Albion]

On the chance that that post was intended to be serious, there can only be one Pope at a time, just like there's only one President at a time.