Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[MoreCoffee]

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it? And why does SDA opinion trump Methodist opinion? Is it by vote? Majority wins?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it? And why does SDA opinion trump Methodist opinion? Is it by vote? Majority wins?

Obviously lack of evidence of scriptural proof does decide for us that soul sleeps and annihilationism is false doctrine. Seems plain enough to me.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Obviously lack of evidence of scriptural proof does decide for us that soul sleeps and annihilationism is false doctrine. Seems plain enough to me.

Not to BobRyan. He says the opposite. The scriptures can decide the case between you can they. You'll argue till the end of time because the final authority to which you appeal is not sufficient to settle the case. It can't settle baptism issues either or issues about the Lord's supper or purgatory or prayer for the dead. It is not sufficient.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not to BobRyan. He says the opposite. The scriptures can decide the case between you can they. You'll argue till the end of time because the final authority to which you appeal is not sufficient to settle the case. It can't settle baptism issues either or issues about the Lord's supper or purgatory or prayer for the dead. It is not sufficient.

Aww shucks, so much less to have to deal with KISS

 

[BobRyan]

What scripture do you use as doctrine for either?

As for the continued existence of the saints after death (but in a dormant state these texts call "sleep') - and before the resurrection.
John 11:11-14
1 Thess 4:13-18

As for the ultimate fate of the wicked after being tormented in real fire and real brimstone in the real lake of fire of course.
Matt 10:28

 

[BobRyan]

Not to BobRyan. He says the opposite. The scriptures can decide the case between you can they. You'll argue till the end of time because the final authority to which you appeal is not sufficient to settle the case. It can't settle baptism issues either or issues about the Lord's supper or purgatory or prayer for the dead. It is not sufficient.

The false test you are establishing - does not work for anything -- until the second coming.

The more I point this detail out - the more you ignore it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

As for the continued existence of the saints after death (but in a dormant state these texts call "sleep') - and before the resurrection.
John 11:11-14
1 Thess 4:13-18

As for the ultimate fate of the wicked after being tormented in real fire and real brimstone in the real lake of fire of course.
Matt 10:28

I guess there`s many other threads on this topic that argue the legitimacy of this contraversial doctrine. It just strikes me as funny that you two are argueing past each other about things that most SS followers have no part in. You are trying to prove SS with questionable doctrine that most who adhere to SS don`t subscribe to.

 

[Standing Up]

Can you respond to my post or not?

Canon has a great deal to do with holy scripture and SS presumably has a canon of some sort in mind so what is and what is not canonical is important to a discussion of SS. Interpretation is also important in a discussion of SS since you interpret matters one way and BobRyan in a different way and both claim holy scripture as your final authority in matters of doctrine yet arrive at opposite doctrines on soul-sleep and annihilationism and who is to decide if BobRyan or you is right? If you appeal to the Holy Spirit then so will BobRyan. If you appeal to the church then so will BobRyan (you will be appealing to different denominations). And since SS is defined according to the cut & paste from Wikipedia that you gave I am working with that definition of SS in this thread. Do you still stand by it? The definition that you gave is "Sola scriptura (Latinablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice." If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it?
​

Your two straw men. 1) canon 2) interpreter have nothing to do with the definition of SS.

"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."

BUT, let's agree for the sake of moving the roundabout. Let's use RC canon as the norm. Here's the definition.

"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."

AND, let's agree for the sake of moving the roundabout a bit further. Let's let RC Magisterium be the interpreter. Here's the definition.

"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."

Can you agree? If not, why not?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Your two straw men. 1) canon 2) interpreter have nothing to do with the definition of SS.

"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."

BUT, let's agree for the sake of moving the roundabout. Let's use RC canon as the norm. Here's the definition.

"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."

AND, let's agree for the sake of moving the roundabout a bit further. Let's let RC Magisterium be the interpreter. Here's the definition.

"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."

Can you agree? If not, why not?

No. The Catholic faith is this, we believe in holy scripture, in holy tradition, and in the magisterium. take one away and the whole structure collapses.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess there`s many other threads on this topic that argue the legitimacy of this contraversial doctrine. It just strikes me as funny that you two are argueing past each other about things that most SS followers have no part in. You are trying to prove SS with questionable doctrine that most who adhere to SS don`t subscribe to.

Its a topic that MC keeps bringing up -- not me.

But I do like those Bible texts -- nonetheless. So I give MC credit for knowing that.

 

[Standing Up]

No. The Catholic faith is this, we believe in holy scripture, in holy tradition, and in the magisterium. take one away and the whole structure collapses.

We know what RC believes. You can't say the same for SS, though the definition and explanation has been provided over and over and over. C/u around.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We know what RC believes.

I doubt that your claim is accurate.

 

[Rick Otto]

Your two straw men. 1) canon 2) interpreter have nothing to do with the definition of SS.

"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."

BUT, let's agree for the sake of moving the roundabout. Let's use RC canon as the norm. Here's the definition.

"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."

AND, let's agree for the sake of moving the roundabout a bit further. Let's let RC Magisterium be the interpreter. Here's the definition.

"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."

Can you agree? If not, why not?

He won't because he can't. it would turn his world upside down.

 

[Standing Up]

MC: "The Catholic faith is this, we believe in holy scripture, in holy tradition, and in the magisterium. take one away and the whole structure collapses."

I doubt that your claim is accurate.

Which part of your quote is inaccurate?

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC: "The Catholic faith is this, we believe in holy scripture, in holy tradition, and in the magisterium. take one away and the whole structure collapses."

Which part of your quote is inaccurate?

The part that I quoted.

 

[Rick Otto]

Insipid. Petulant.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Insipid. Petulant.

Nobody ought to make time to type rubbish like your post.

 

[Goatee]

Sola Scripture.................as interpreted by man! lol

 

[Rick Otto]

If Scripture alone cannot decide if the soul sleeps or not and if annihilationism is true or not then it is not sufficient to decide all matters of doctrine and practise is it? And why does SDA opinion trump Methodist opinion? Is it by vote? Majority wins?

Scripture decides. Men argue over what the decision means.
Maybe it should not be dogma if consensus isn't unified.
To say one interpretation "trumps" another, reveals an orientation toward authority as the source of truth.

 

[EinsteinsGirl]

“For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought” - Isaiah 29:20-21