Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[MoreCoffee]

Those verses are all lovely verses but none of them teaches SS.

There are numerous passages that show scripture is sufficient to know all things salvific. As such, we can use scripture as the plumb line for someone's doctrine. For example, if someone says Christ did not come in the flesh, what will you use to determine its truth and whether its necessary to believe? Here's a sampling of the answer:

But these [signs] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:4

Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 2 Peter 1:5 (How? Write it down and canonize it.)

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed ...
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
. Romans 10:1, 17 (This is a reference to why Moses wrote it down.)

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10:11

For many of us, we find that there is no sense in scripture that the apostles left anything necessary for salvation out, nor did they highlight a second source of truth to go to in order to know you are saved.

 

[Standing Up]

Those verses are all lovely verses but none of them teaches SS.

What's your definition of SS?

 

[MoreCoffee]

How about you give me a definition if it is a concept or a practise that you support?

What's your definition of SS?

 

[Rick Otto]

Those verses are all lovely verses but none of them teaches SS.

And that proves it!


lol...



smh

 

[Rick Otto]

What's your definition of SS?

It changes to suit the occasion.
I've learned to try and limit my questions to him to rhetorical ones.
You posted all those verses after he asked for some, denied my one even existed, and you see how articulate and substantiated his citationless answer is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You are most welcome to provide a definition that you think is adequate.

It changes to suit the occasion.
I've learned to try and limit my questions to him to rhetorical ones.
You posted all those verses after he asked for some, denied my one even existed, and you see how articulate and substantiated his citationless answer is.

 

[Rick Otto]

You are most welcome to provide a definition that you think is adequate.

Pay attention. I already have.

 

[MoreCoffee]

where?

Pay attention. I already have.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

where?

Your focus is being right sans reasoning. This thread has reached an end of questioning

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where did Christ tell the apostles to determine doctrine? Where did He tell the bishops in the 19th century to determine doctrine?

When he says "Who hears you, hears me. Whatever you shall open, no one may shut, whatever you shall shut, no one may open". Coupled with the point where he told them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. Regarding apostolic succession, the appointment of Matthias as apostle to replace Judas, and the letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus show that the Apostles knew that their posts were meant to continue and be guided the same way.

 

[Root of Jesse]

We`ve clarified from scripture that God`s word is not chained so He is still able to speak to individuals now. But by Pauls words that is limited to handling the truth, which is scripture, otherwise no one is approved.

But Paul condones the use of Sacred Tradition to Timothy and Titus.

 

[Standing Up]

When he says "Who hears you, hears me. Whatever you shall open, no one may shut, whatever you shall shut, no one may open". Coupled with the point where he told them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. Regarding apostolic succession, the appointment of Matthias as apostle to replace Judas, and the letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus show that the Apostles knew that their posts were meant to continue and be guided the same way.

Where did Christ tell the apostles to determine doctrine?
Apostolic succession is the same as the Pauline "teach the same". So, where is your idea that the apostles and their successors may determine doctrine?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your statement was about being God breathed, which is only substansiated as scripture. No further

My statement is that the Canon of Scripture is God-breathed, yet it wasn't written until at least the fourth century, and is nowhere in Scripture. You trust in a Canon of Scripture that you consider to be God-breathed, yet wasn't written until much later. Those are examples of Sacred Tradition being God-breathed, which we accept as absolute Truth, therefore, we can hold other things which are not explicit in Scripture as being God-breathed.

 

[Standing Up]

But Paul condones the use of Sacred Tradition to Timothy and Titus.

Wrong. Paul spoke and wrote the same things. That is to what he refers.

 

[Standing Up]

How about you give me a definition if it is a concept or a practise that you support?

You're the one that said the verses don't support SS. Surely you therefore have a definition of SS in mind. How about you share? If not, we'll assume you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because they don't believe the guidepost is an adequate guidepost. Because they think they are the only ones able to understand the guidepost. And when we show them where the guidepost shows them how Paul used the Old Guidepost to very the New Guidepost he was writing and teaching, they outright deny the reality in their face. They even deny we showed it to them and refuse to discuss it, wanting to "move on" because 'it isn't there.

I can only stand a half dozen posts of that caliber before I go in peace.

So Protestants don't believe that the guidepost is an adequate guidepost? Amazing. Catholics think the Word of God is the guidepost, we disagree with Protestants what constitutes that Word of God.

The funny thing is, Rick...it's not there.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wrong. Paul spoke and wrote the same things. That is to what he refers.

I don't believe Paul's total theology is in his letters. Sorry.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't believe Paul's total theology is in his letters. Sorry.

Believe Paul spoke of the de fide necessity to believe the moon is made of cheese. That's all it amounts to.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Believe Paul spoke of the de fide necessity to believe the moon is made of cheese. That's all it amounts to.

In your opinion. So what? No authority.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not believe in SS. The nearest thing to a definition I've seen is in the Westminster Confession of faith first chapter. As for me defining a doctrine/practise or whatever that I do not believe ... meh. But if the folk who say they do believe it refuse to define it then fine. There's nothing to discuss and the verses obviously cannot support an undefined SS that even its advocates are too shy (or ashamed) to define.

You're the one that said the verses don't support SS. Surely you therefore have a definition of SS in mind. How about you share? If not, we'll assume you're arguing for the sake of arguing.