Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[MoreCoffee]

It's a good thing that the Catholic Church is not a denomination

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Demon i nation
Hmmmm......

 

[MoreCoffee]

Demon i nation
Hmmmm......

You made a typo. It is Denomination. Note that is it nom not mon.

It is never wise to base one's religion on a typo.

 

[MoreCoffee]

BOLDNESS

I see, is the text of your post all in bold?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon that by post 100 we already had the decision on the issue raised in this thread. The bible is not sufficient. That much is obvious. One must at least read it or hear it read if it is to make any significant change in one's life (for the better). And reading or hearing it read is part of interpreting it and interpreting it is one of the many steps that one must take to apply its wise counsel. There's no way that the bible is sufficient exclusive of an interpreter and a tradition of interpretation. Some people like to be self deceived about such things and pretend that the tradition of interpretation starts with them. They have a kind of "me and God" view of religion. It's not that way and never has been. It's always been God and his faithful people. A community that learns from God in which individual insights are tested by others and either accepted or rejected according to the corporate wisdom that God grants to the faithful. It is a matter of discernment practised by the whole community and that includes the discernment and insights of all the generations from the time of the apostles up to today. It's the bible and the community - that is, the Church - that will see us right. Best not to trust in your own understanding as the proverb warns.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.
(Proverbs 3:5 NRSV)​

 

[TheDag]

Interesting. Based on the few posts I've yours I'm seeing on this page, your logic seems to be "don't sweat the small stuff". So what then was the point of rebelling against the Catholic Church if you're not striving for perfect?

Not quite correct. That was done by the RCC by kicking out Luther and anyone who agreed with him. What is interesting is that others who were kicked out were hundreds of years later the church reversed that decision. I reckon they would have done the same with Luther had no denomination been started. The RCC & Lutheran church do after all accept each others practices officially.

Well, no offense is intended here but considering the individual's questionable abilities and absolutely lousy track record, I certainly understand the reluctance.

No more lousy than the church's record. Got a date for when the RCC will start handling sex offenders according to the biblical instructions? I don't expect an answer to that last question but hopefully you get the point that no church is perfect. It is not an institution that will be held to account by God but individuals.

I don't know you. You don't know me. I interpret that statement as rude and aggressive. That may not be what you intended but that's how I'm interpreting it.

No it was not intended that way and having studied communications as part of my studies I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly interpret it as aggressive. Rude? Yeah it could be seen as a little short and since it was late it is possible.
Why not assume better motives of people rather than assuming the worst though?

Doctrine concerning what, exactly?

With all due respect it is a simple question. What was his doctrine? What did he believe? We know he was saved so he must have it right. Point your missing is that he didn't have all these little details correct so they can't be essential really can they.

It was apparently important enough for Our Lord to talk about, for the Holy Spirit to inspire St. John to include in his gospel in chapter 6 and for the Early Church to talk about at great length.

I think you missed what I meant. It doesn't matter if a church believes it is symbolic only as it is what God does. So if it is not symbolic then it doesn't matter if they believe that as God is the one doing the work. Likewise if it was symbolic then it does not matter if one believes it is the literal body and blood because it is what God says that is truth. One simply does not have to have 100% correct doctrine to be saved.

And as I explained, I believe your concern is unwarranted. My posts have been topical and followed the basic trajectory of this thread without ever really going off topic.

As I said though it was half an explanation (which you acknowledged) and clearly it was not enough for This is something probably best left.

And yet I point out one instance of probably the most famous Protestant in history co-opting Latin to give his man-made invention more scholarly cachet and the response is that Protestants don't oppose Latin.

Misunderstanding of history. Luther didn't really say anything new. The difference was the printing press was invented and the voice could not be silenced as easily as it had in the past.
Calling it a man made invention is highly offensive to many on these forums and if you are going to lecture others on being rude then you should lead by example. I can only hope you were really tired and had a bad day to say something like that.

Honestly, the way it looks (and this may not be official policy among all Protestants at all times in all places in all of history) is Protestants reserve the right to criticize the Church of the time for a perceived lack of vernacular language but feel totally within their rights to abandon vernacular language whenever it suits them. If you believe that to be a mischaracterization, I would be interested to hear how you view the matter.

Evidence for your statement please. You made the claim so support it. I'm betting you have none to back it up. I think your error is assuming different denominations classified as protestant are one group like the RCC. That is not the case just like there has been no unity in the RCC for a long time and certainly even longer if like you group different denominations together then we do the same with orthodox and all catholic groups. There has been no unity. So how about instead of constantly repeating this garbage as if it means something lets actually have a discussion.

In reality nobody seems to have a problem with latin but just like words were translated into latin most believe it is good to use language of the country rather than sticking to latin. Of course when trying to understand various passages it is good to go back to the latin and original languages. Nothing wrong with using common tongue for the location.

Since I'm reacting to another member's opinions, would it be possible for you to allow him to speak for himself please?

I'm sorry that you don't like forums but the way forums work is that people make posts and others respond. If you want a one on one conversation there is a way to do that on this site. The forums is not that way. In any case I was not speaking for them. I was speaking for myself. This comment of yours could also be interpreted as agressive if I was to use your standards of aggressive.

 

[Rick Otto]

Everyone go to their corner and get a latte', stat!

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not quite correct. That was done by the RCC by kicking out Luther and anyone who agreed with him. What is interesting is that others who were kicked out were hundreds of years later the church reversed that decision. I reckon they would have done the same with Luther had no denomination been started. The RCC & Lutheran church do after all accept each others practices officially.

Luther repudiated the faith. Sooner or later, the Church was going to have to reply. Luther didn't condemn the clergy for living badly. He condemned the clergy for believing badly. They were wrong for believing what they did in Luther's view.

No more lousy than the church's record. Got a date for when the RCC will start handling sex offenders according to the biblical instructions?

What are the biblical instructions for handling sex-offenders?

No it was not intended that way and having studied communications as part of my studies I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly interpret it as aggressive. Rude? Yeah it could be seen as a little short and since it was late it is possible.
Why not assume better motives of people rather than assuming the worst though?

If I'd assumed the worse, I wouldn't have apologized preemptively. I would've followed my usual rule and reported you instantly.

With all due respect it is a simple question. What was his doctrine? What did he believe? We know he was saved so he must have it right. Point your missing is that he didn't have all these little details correct so they can't be essential really can they.

Our Lord outright said that baptism is non-negotiable. You cannot enter the Kingdom without having been baptized. And yet there's good reason to believe that thief on the cross went to heaven without having been baptized with water. This much was guaranteed by the same Lord who laid down the requirement for baptism.

So either Our Lord contradicted Himself (which He didn't) or there's a nuance to the thief's salvation that Protestants have overlooked.

One simply does not have to have 100% correct doctrine to be saved.

A lot of Protestants really should hope so.

Calling it a man made invention is highly offensive to many on these forums and if you are going to lecture others on being rude then you should lead by example. I can only hope you were really tired and had a bad day to say something like that.

Catholics get picked apart all the time around here for "following traditions of men", frequently by self-described Calvinists and at least one Lutheran so there's your daily dose of irony.

Anyway, unless you're saying it's okay for those of us who follow traditional Christianity to report "offensive" remarks like that, I think you need to simply accept what I said. If a mod says "Hey, Colors, fix your post or else it'll be curtains! Curtains, you hear? CURTAINS!", I'll fix it. But I would expect that rule to go both ways, in which case a lot of Protestants around here are in for a bad time from the mods.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This stuff about how allegedly wicked is the Catholic Church is off topic. The topic of this thread is Sola Scriptura. I suspect that SS has run its course in this thread and that everybody knows (even if they deny) that SS is not a teaching that is in holy scripture and it is not a practise shown by example in holy scripture nor in apostolic tradition so out of lack of a real on topic/theme to discuss some folk have turned the thread into a "we hate Catholicism" thread but that theme is off topic. If you hate Catholicism enough to want to write lots of posts about it then try creating your own thread, you can call it "I hate Catholicism so neyah" if you want to

 

[Albion]

I reckon that by post 100 we already had the decision on the issue raised in this thread. The bible is not sufficient. That much is obvious.

If it were not sufficient, I'm sure that a whole bunch of people here could--and would--come forth and tell us why God gave us inadequate revelation that needed some addendums from the mind of his creatures.

They never do. Instead, they say it's "obvious" that the word of God is inadequate.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If it were not sufficient, I'm sure that a whole bunch of people here could--and would--come forth and tell us why God gave us inadequate revelation that needed some addendums from the mind of his creatures.

They never do. Instead, they say it's "obvious" that the word of God is inadequate.

Yes, in your way of thinking about this matter that seems to be the conclusion, for you it appears that holy scripture is inadequate unless it is the final authority by which are decided all doctrinal disputes and disputes about practise. Okay, that is what several have said in here before. Nevertheless the holy scriptures need an interpreter to be significant for people today and a tradition of interpretation to avoid novelties that tend to heresy, but you allow for that and for that I commend your stated view. Nevertheless God gave his faithful people leaders and empowered them to teach with authority and promised them his presence and the presence of the holy Spirit so that the Church would not be deceived or misled into error and destruction. Thus apostolic tradition and a magisterium were created by Christ and continue in the church to this day. Apostolic tradition is revelation from God but not inscripturated revelation and the magisterium is a sure judge of interpretations and practises but not a source of revelation and so we have the divine plan of governance of his Church in this world until the Lord comes again. The Church thus has a kind of constitution (the holy scriptures) and laws (apostolic tradition) and courts competent to decide disputes (the magisterium) as well as a police force to enforce the law and the decisions of the courts (the exercise of church discipline). So while many denominations reject Catholic Church teaching on these matters they nevertheless implement similar structures because they see the divine wisdom in the arrangement.

 

[Albion]

Yes, in your way of thinking about this matter that seems to be the conclusion, for you it seems that holy scripture is inadequate unless it is the sole and absolute decider of all doctrinal disputes and disputes about practise.

It's Roman Catholicism that has proclaimed Holy Scripture to be inadequate...but none of its members can explain why it is.

That's why requests for a simple explanation of that thinking here on CF has been repeatedly met with silence or else comments like "It's obvious" or "The Bible doesn't absolutely say that something else might not be just as good."

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's Catholicism that has proclaimed Holy Scripture as inadequate, but can't explain why that's so.

Holy scripture is adequate for the purposes for which God gave it. As saint Paul said "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work." Holy Scripture is useful for the purposes noted in the words of saint Paul yet it is not intended to self interpret nor is it intended to administer discipline nor decide doctrine even though its teaching sets boundaries for doctrine. These are exercises for people to perform under the guidance of God and with the help of holy scripture and the holy Spirit. I imagine that you agree with this without saying that holy scripture is inadequate. In the same way I do not say that holy scripture is inadequate for the purposes for which God intends it to be used.

 

[Albion]

As saint Paul said "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work." Holy Scripture is useful for the purposes noted in the words of saint Paul yet it is not intended to self interpret nor is it intended to administer discipline nor decide doctrine even though its teaching sets boundaries for doctrine.

I'm listening. Continue with that explanation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm listening. Continue with that explanation.

If you are familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church then a more fulsome explanation is there in that book.

 

[Albion]

If you are familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church then a more fulsome explanation is there in that book.

So you don't have an explanation to offer. That's exactly what I was referring to when I wrote,

"It's Roman Catholicism that has proclaimed Holy Scripture to be inadequate...but none of its members can explain why it is."

I didn't expect a verification of that to appear quite so soon, however.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm listening. Continue with that explanation.

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE
I. Christ—The Unique Word of Sacred Scripture
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: “Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men.”63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64 (65, 2763, 426-429)

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66 (1100, 1184, 1378)

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God.”67 “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”68

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”69

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72 (702)

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79 (128, 368)

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81). (81)

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. (90)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I reckon that by post 100 we already had the decision on the issue raised in this thread. The bible is not sufficient. That much is obvious.
One must at least read it or hear it read if it is to make any significant change in one's life (for the better). And reading or hearing it read is part of interpreting it and interpreting it is one of the many steps that one must take to apply its wise counsel.................

Good post.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-one-reading.7356783/
The one reading

Matthew 24:15
"Whenever then ye may be seeing the abomination of the desolation, the being declared thru Daniel the Prophet having-stood in a place, holy (the one-reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) let him be understanding!" [Mark 13:14]

Revelation 1:3
Happy/blessed the one reading/ana-ginwskwn <314> (5723) and the ones hearing the words of the prophecy and keepings the in it having been written
for the time is nigh.

It appears that greek word literally means "above knowldege" ?

314. anaginosko from 303 and 1097; to know again, i.e. (by extension) to read:--read.
303. ana a primary preposition and adverb; properly, up; but (by extension) used (distributively) severally, or (locally) at (etc.):--and, apiece, by, each, every (man), in, through. In compounds (as a prefix) it often means (by implication) repetition, intensity, reversal, etc.
1097. ginosko a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed):--allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

 

[TheDag]

Luther repudiated the faith. Sooner or later, the Church was going to have to reply. Luther didn't condemn the clergy for living badly. He condemned the clergy for believing badly. They were wrong for believing what they did in Luther's view.

This in no way addresses what I said. So not sure why you are saying it.

What are the biblical instructions for handling sex-offenders?

If they repeatedly offend they are to be kicked out of the church is part of it. Certainly being aware of it and keeping priests in place where they have access to more children is wrong. What is the RCC teaching on this?

If I'd assumed the worse, I wouldn't have apologized preemptively. I would've followed my usual rule and reported you instantly.

Either way you chose not to believe the best. You stated you chose to interpret it as rude and aggressive. One of those as I said had absolutely no justification at all. The other possible justification but if you chose to believe the best then you would not have chosen that. A better way would have been to say That seems a bit rude to me could you rephrase or would you mind taking a bit more care next time.

Our Lord outright said that baptism is non-negotiable. You cannot enter the Kingdom without having been baptized. And yet there's good reason to believe that thief on the cross went to heaven without having been baptized with water. This much was guaranteed by the same Lord who laid down the requirement for baptism.

So either Our Lord contradicted Himself (which He didn't) or there's a nuance to the thief's salvation that Protestants have overlooked.

Which is why the catholics make up baptisms that do not exist to get around it. Protestants like the orthodox leave it to God.

In jewish times there was an age of accountability and up till that age your parents faith was enough. Once you reached that age then the faith needed to be your own. That was the tradition of the day which Jesus grew up in and he never spoke against it. Or does tradition mean nothing suddenly? Many of the stories in the bible when being understood must take into consideration the traditions of the day. Otherwise the meaning gets twisted.* The question is why infant baptism came into the church as late as it did if it was so important. A honest look at church history shows that it was not done from the beginning.

*just in case your planning on arguing it using tradition to understand scripture does not go against SS.

A lot of Protestants really should hope so.

A person who converts on their deathbed has absolutely no chance of having 100% correct doctrine so it is self-evident. Unless you are claiming anyone who converts on their deathbed will not go to heaven but that definitely would contradict the bible. See parable of the workers Matt 20.

Catholics get picked apart all the time around here for "following traditions of men", frequently by self-described Calvinists and at least one Lutheran so there's your daily dose of irony.

Anyway, unless you're saying it's okay for those of us who follow traditional Christianity to report "offensive" remarks like that, I think you need to simply accept what I said. If a mod says "Hey, Colors, fix your post or else it'll be curtains! Curtains, you hear? CURTAINS!", I'll fix it. But I would expect that rule to go both ways, in which case a lot of Protestants around here are in for a bad time from the mods.

None of this is relevant. The point is that you were being very rude while having a go at me for being rude. Jesus harshest words were to hypocrites. Your behaviour and your words have that position. So don't forget to check the log in your own eye. I have in no way condoned that behaviour by others. In fact I have a track record of telling those I agree with in discussions that their comments are out of line. Two wrongs do not make a right. Any post condemning any christian group as unchristian is wrong. Simple as that.

 

[TheDag]

Yes, in your way of thinking about this matter that seems to be the conclusion, for you it appears that holy scripture is inadequate unless it is the final authority by which are decided all doctrinal disputes and disputes about practise. Okay, that is what several have said in here before. Nevertheless the holy scriptures need an interpreter to be significant for people today and a tradition of interpretation to avoid novelties that tend to heresy, but you allow for that and for that I commend your stated view. Nevertheless God gave his faithful people leaders and empowered them to teach with authority and promised them his presence and the presence of the holy Spirit so that the Church would not be deceived or misled into error and destruction. Thus apostolic tradition and a magisterium were created by Christ and continue in the church to this day. Apostolic tradition is revelation from God but not inscripturated revelation and the magisterium is a sure judge of interpretations and practises but not a source of revelation and so we have the divine plan of governance of his Church in this world until the Lord comes again. The Church thus has a kind of constitution (the holy scriptures) and laws (apostolic tradition) and courts competent to decide disputes (the magisterium) as well as a police force to enforce the law and the decisions of the courts (the exercise of church discipline). So while many denominations reject Catholic Church teaching on these matters they nevertheless implement similar structures because they see the divine wisdom in the arrangement.

In all honesty you need to stop making absolute statements about SS when you have not provided evidence other than because your church says so. SS does not deny the need for correct interpretation. That has been stated several times but for whatever reason you have chosen to ignore that.

What I find interesting about your post #2058 is that is basically the protestant position.