Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe yours is not scriptural -- I suppose we may have to take your word for that.

But ours is scriptural.

Tell me what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and where it shows up in Scripture...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am saying that they had every reason (as we would) to simply take whatever the risen Lord said - so He deliberately comes to them as a "stranger" and the case he makes is "sola scriptura".

Except that he shows them Scripture, and explains (verbally) how it applies to him. That's not Sola Scriptura, it's taking Scripture and interpreting it.

But this would the perfect RCC context for "just because I say so - not because we need a Bible to show us or prove something" -- had that been the preferred model.

That's never been the Catholic model.

This is irrefutable. Christ goes out of his way to establish a "sola scriptura" context.

No, Christ goes out of his way to prove that you must provide context in order to make sense of Scripture. Which is Tradition.

 

[Root of Jesse]

At the very least we can affirm that there is no Bible reason to reject the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition - that we see Christ Himself using in Mark 7:6-13

As if Catholics don't test their doctrine against Scripture...what a riot, you are, Alice!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Look up "Scripture" and "Scriptures" in an exhaustive concordance.

No need. Scripture is written. But most of Scripture was spoken first, written later. There is still God's Word which has not been written, and we don't throw that away with the leftovers.

 

[Job8]

As if Catholics don't test their doctrine against Scripture...what a riot, you are, Alice!

There's a world of difference between testing doctrine against Scripture and reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate doctrine (or dogma). If the RCC actually tested doctrine against Scripture then purgatory would be scratched from the CCC (and that's only the tip of the iceberg).

 

[Fireinfolding]

Jesus referred to what Moses said as "the word of God " because God spake by Moses, even as he did by the mouth of the former prophets.

And through Moses God said

Duet 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Even Jesus said,

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses (God's words as written) ye would have believed me: for he (( wrote )) of me.

God having said by Moses... "and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him".

Jesus, confirming these same words God spake by Moses speaking in accord said,

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Which is being confirmed in himself concerning what God had spoken (as is also written) by Moses (even as his apostles confirm this same is speaking of Jesus in Acts 3:22 & Acts 7:37)

God (speaking by Moses) as is written isn't finished, He continues, saying

Duet 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Jesus expresses this twofold in the rejection but its to that which is spoken which (being written for us to know) is the one judging him.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth **me**, and receiveth not **my words**, (( hath one )) that judgeth him: (( the word )) that **I have** (( spoken )), **the same ** shall judge him in the last day.

Or, "the words of" the Word made flesh (whose words are not his own but His that sent him) as he said. Thus the words/ the word of God (as Jesus has spoken it) even as they are written for us.

Same with building upon a rock (which is Christ, or the sure foundation) this consists of both hearing His words (which are not his own) but His that sent Him and doing them.

We have God speaking by Moses (as is written) bearing record (or witness of) another (even the record of His Son) whom God would raise up (like unto him) who would speak the words of God. Even as this speaks of Jesus Christ speaking the words which were given him of God, even the Father (by commandment). Jesus referring to the words as given by Moses as the word of God, even the commandments, given God spake by Moses and Moses wrote of Jesus who (as testified beforehand) would be given the words of God, both agree in the same.

I don't see how "being written" somehow diminishes the words spoken, or that somehow that needs to be brought up as if important, as if it had more weight in His mouth (back then) then it ever would now (because its only written on paper).

The words to be given (even as recorded by Moses in scripture) as Moses wrote of him, find their fulfillment in God putting His words in Jesus mouth (which He is commanded to speak).

Jesus said, this is the one that will judge him, even the very word (that the Word made flesh) has spoken. Even as both of these are written (and agree together, speaking the same, see Duet 18:19)

Which (as I regard them) being scripture. Being God breathed, even the words/ the word of God (as was also spoken by Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh) are also written for us .

Jesus said, me and my words.

Jesus, is the Word (made flesh) speaking the word/words of the one that sent him (as it is also written) even it was prophesied beforehand. How do you even separate them? Since the Word (made flesh) even Jesus Christ (whose words/ doctrine was not His) speaks the words of God (even according to the word of God has spoken by Moses).

As Jesus also said,

John 17:18 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

The same with them as it was with him

John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

**I edited this for further clarity and to clean this up some (And I wrote it like that on purpose) that was a royal pain I know lol

 

[Root of Jesse]

There's a world of difference between testing doctrine against Scripture and reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate doctrine (or dogma). If the RCC actually tested doctrine against Scripture then purgatory would be scratched from the CCC (and that's only the tip of the iceberg).

Well, who reinterpreted what? Rather who cut out 7 whole books, and several parts of books in order to scrap the claim of Catholicism that Purgatory exists? Yeah the tip of the iceberg that sinks denominationalism...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jesus referred to what Moses said as "the word of God " because God spake by Moses even as he did by the former prophets, and likewise through Moses he also said

Duet 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Even as Jesus said,

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses (which were also Gods words written) ye would have believed me: for he (( wrote of )) me.

But God says by Moses... and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Jesus, confirming the same words God spake by Moses (which were written) and saying in accord

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Jesus confirms what God has spoken even as is also written by Moses ( as Jesus apostles also confirm the same is Jesus in Acts 3:22 & Acts 7:37)

God (speaking by Moses) as is written isn't finished, God continues, saying

Duet 18:18 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Its twofold in the rejection but that which is spoken (which is also written) is the one judging him

John 12:48 He that rejecteth **me**, and receiveth not **my words**, (( hath one )) that judgeth him: the word that **I have spoken**, (( the same )) shall judge him in the last day.

Or "the words of" the Word made flesh (whose words are not His but He that sent him) thus the words/ word of God (as spoken) even written

Same with building upon a rock (which is Christ, or the sure foundation) consists of both hearing His words (which are not His but He that sent Him) and doing them (which were the words spoken by Christ and also written)

We have God speaking by Moses bearing record (or witness of) another whom God would raise up (like unto him) who would speak the words of God, even as this speaks of Jesus Christ speaking the words which were given him of God, even the Father (even by commandment). Jesus referring to the words by Moses as the word of God, given God spake by Moses and Moses writes of Jesus who would be given the same (the words of God) both agree in the same.

I don't see how "being written" somehow diminishes the words spoken, or that somehow it had more weight in His mouth (back then) then it would now (because its written on paper).

The words to be given (even as recorded in scripture) by Moses (as Moses wrote) find their fulfillment in God putting His words in Jesus mouth (which He is commanded to speak). Jesus says, this is one that will judge him even the very word (that the Word made flesh) has spoken. Even as these are written.

Which (as I regard them) as being scripture being God breathed, even the word/ words of God (as spoken by Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh) are written for us .

Me and my words. Who is the Word (made flesh) speaking the word/words of He that sent him (as it is also written as prophesied beforehand). How do you even separate them? Since the Word (made flesh, Jesus Christ) speaks the words of God (whose words/ doctrine was not His).

And likewise Jesus said,

John 17:18 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Same with them as it was with him

John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

To the bolded, who claims that being written diminishes anything? Catholics do not put anything above Scripture, but Magisterium and Tradition on the same level as Scripture-quite a different thing, whether you want to hear it or not...

 

[Fireinfolding]

To the bolded, who claims that being written diminishes anything? Catholics do not put anything above Scripture, but Magisterium and Tradition on the same level as Scripture-quite a different thing, whether you want to hear it or not...

That must have hit home somehow, where did I mention a who?

When we see folks put that difference then we know who the who is.

 

[Standing Up]

The point is that we have Traditions which are Biblical, yet there is no mention of them in the Bible. An example of why SS is just a late innovation.

Lol. Too funny.

 

[Standing Up]

Where did Jesus say that?

Luke 24:27? Not sure your question.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Lol. Too funny.

 

[Standing Up]

Except that he shows them Scripture, and explains (verbally) how it applies to him. That's not Sola Scriptura, it's taking Scripture and interpreting it.
That's never been the Catholic model.
No, Christ goes out of his way to prove that you must provide context in order to make sense of Scripture. Which is Tradition.

Do you folks keep confusing SS and interpretation on purpose so as to avoid coming to the conclusion?

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Nothing in there about who interprets or which manuscript to use. It is simply what Christ did, even as you say! "he shows them Scripture"

 

[Root of Jesse]

That must have hit home somehow, where did I mention a who?

When we see folks put that difference then we know who the who is.

Then call me stupid, I don't know any Christian that puts anything above Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Luke 24:27? Not sure your question.

Where did Jesus say, exactly ""the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice"."?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you folks keep confusing SS and interpretation on purpose so as to avoid coming to the conclusion?

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

When did Wiki become a doctrinal authority?

Nothing in there about who interprets or which manuscript to use. It is simply what Christ did, even as you say! "he shows them Scripture"

And explained it to them. Which is what Tradition is.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Then call me stupid, I don't know any Christian that puts anything above Scripture.

I didn't say that. I was speaking to those who will always stress the spoken word over the written word as if they are seeking to diminish it because he is not here speaking those words, but rather we only have them written.

I am speaking to "that" and some folks do that here

 

[Root of Jesse]

I didn't say that. I was speaking to those who will always stress the spoken word over the written word as if they are seeking to diminish it because he is not here speaking those words, but rather we only have them written.

I am speaking to "that" and some folks do that here

Again, I don't know anyone like that. I think that's your judgement or label of how some people preach or something. If someone is too full of themselves, like Joel Osteen, I turn em off. That's why I quit watching football, for the most part-them guys are just too full of themselves.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Again, I don't know anyone like that.

Thats nice

 

[Rick Otto]

At the very least we can affirm that there is no Bible reason to reject the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition - that we see Christ Himself using in Mark 7:6-13

You're being kind, whereas I was not.
I will take a lesson. Thank you.