A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

[Sloth]

The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

LOL... FR is hardly the website to post *this* argument on. We do not not need some official interpreters strutting around in robes to tell us what either document says. 'Sola Scriptura' is strict constructionism of the Bible.

[BenKenobi]

My answer wasn’t flippant.

I suggest you look at the Book of Concord.

Question asked, question answered.

[BenKenobi]

” ‘Sola Scriptura’ is strict constructionism of the Bible.”

Which is why Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts are all Catholic? ;)

[sr4402]

And, whatever shall we do with that pesky St. John 1:1? That

"and the Word was God"

Simple, God and His Word are one and the same. So if you don't treat the Scriptures with reverance, neither are you treating God with the proper reverance either. Good Question.

[The Comedian]

?"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you"

Seeing that this was commanded before the New Testament was written should it be disregarded? Or should we accept it as more commands from the Lord to be kept?

If you are unwilling and/or unable to comprehend the fact that the Old and New Testaments are one Word, and that your comprehension of time doesn't have any effect on the compound unity of the Logos, why would I waste my time trying to explain anything to you?

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[goat granny]

even the son of a poor carpenter could and did read scripture at the temple."

And done without a teachers union...

[sr4402]

Mrs. Don-o,

John 1:1 states "And the Word was God". So the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word are one and the same. You cannot split the Lord Jesus Christ and the Scriptures (His inspired Word). To do so is an attempt to destroy His authority and His word.

[bkaycee]

"There is a list of these oral traditions, correct?"

Linked to at post #33.

So, your answer to what "oral" traditions Paul was talking about in 2 Thes 2:15 is the Catechism???

Sorry, I have faith, but not nearly enough to believe that answer.

[Mr. Lucky]

A basic tenet of my denomination is that Scripture speaks for itself and doesn’t require interpretation. Ecclesiastical rights or traditions of the church catholic which can be supported by Scripture are not offensive to us.

[BenKenobi]

His word encompasses that which was written, and that which was spoken, and passed onto the Apostles.

That’s why it’s called the Word of God in the first place. The Bible is the oral transcription of many of the teachings of Christ.

[Valpal1]

Excellent point!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

BK,
The Bible teaches the Apostles were laid as a foundation
for the Church. It does not teach we are to have continual
Apostles living on earth [anywhere I can see].

“Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of
the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is
Christ Jesus himself.” Eph 2:20

SO...I would ask you the reverse.

Where does the Bible teach there will always be
Apostles living on the earth?

Where is a selection criteria laid out?

If you use the criteria listed in Acts, when a replacement
for Judas was chosen, it had to be someone who had been
with them from the beginning. Anyone around today that meets
that criteria?

I think not.

Later, completely apart from any action the early Church
took, Jesus Christ Himself appeared to the Apostle Paul
and chose him. Paul was not even a believer when Christ
appeared to him.

Do you believe the Lord will always supernaturally appear
and choose an additional Apostle? Will He continue to choose
non-Christians to become Apostles? In the tradition that
claims Apostolic authority, I do not see either the casting
of the lots (Book of Acts method) nor the Supernatural
appearance of the Lord to choose a non-Christian to become
and Apostle...

[It is worth considering that the Apostle Paul was chosen
while there were already 12 other Apostles living, as far
as we know. That makes 13. So it isn’t like there was a
vacancy...]

Why are there not 12 Apostles, each chosen supernaturally
before they became Christians - directly by the Lord - at
this point in history?

That is the best I can do to respond to your question.

best and Happy New Year,
ampu

PS - You didn’t ask about Apostolic Authority continuing
by the original Apostles who live today, so I will put
that off for another thread.

[Iscool]

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

Of course this whole piece is a big mess but I couldn't resist refuting this ridiculous paragraph in light of what the scripture actually teaches...

2Ti 1:14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Now compare what God says to the stuff your religion puts out...You guys think you can understand God's words without God...

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

Oh brother...Moses taught out of a book...The scripture...Jesus said 'it is written' 63 times...

The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

Sorry Charlie...The bible hasn't collapsed...The only things that collapsed are your religion and your tradition...The bible is still standing, with it's one leg...

[bkaycee]

The book of Concord is hardly a Catholic document.

[GonzoII]

"If you are unwilling and/or unable to comprehend the fact that the Old and New Testaments are one Word, and that your comprehension of time doesn't have any effect on the compound unity of the Logos"

Indeed there is no time as far as God is concerned but the effect of eternal truth being revealed to to the human mind does play out in time as far as human realities are concerned.

The Logos had no prblem with that reality:

Mt:5:21:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (KJV)

[Mr Rogers]

First, the Apostles and Jesus cited scripture as authoritative. When Jesus Himself argued with Satan, he quoted scripture. That, at a minimum, means a tradition cannot contradict scripture.

So if a church says Mary was taken up to heaven without tasting death, well...the scripture is silent, so believe what you want.

OTOH, when a church says Mary remained a virgin forever, well...there are multiple passages that indicate otherwise. If you choose to believe it REALLY meant cousin, I cannot stop you, but I expect you to understand why I reject what you say.

And when a church rules that a bishop (elder) must be single, that contradicts scripture. Again, I cannot prevent you from believing it, but you ought to understand why I reject it and the church that makes the claim.

Not all prophecies were written down and accepted as scripture. That doesn’t make them false, but if they contradict the scriptures, THEN they are false.

Also, there is no continuing revelation to the church. Paul told the elders in Acts 20 that he taught the whole counsel of God - not part, with some hidden. And John told Christians in 2 John to “abide in the teaching of Christ”.

If you wish to add other teaching (Papal Supremacy, Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc), I cannot stop you. But for me, I’ll be content to abide in the whole counsel of God as taught by the Apostles.

[RnMomof7]

St. Augustine City of God book XI Chapter 3

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life ...
Source: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book II, Chap. 9,

Chapter1, #3 ... I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.
Letter 82 From Augustine to Jerome.

For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,謡hile there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,耀till, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,葉he faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable.
Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen.), by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria; and Doctor of the Church; about 318 A.D.

[sr4402]

that Sola Scriptura without guidance of tradition or the Holy Spirit is prone to be abused. It is the root of the phrase ‘you can prove anything with the Bible’.

Well, let's look what "Tradition" can do.

In the Catholic Church, it means Mary is your Salvation:

UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX: "For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation."

Note: By Tradition, Pope Pius IX made Mary ALL your Salvation, ALL your Hope and ALL your Grace - Not the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what happens when Sola Scriptura is not applied. Tradtion overwrites Scripture.

[RnMomof7]

Athanasius wrote:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6)

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:

“For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (Lecture 4:17)

[Rashputin]

"Ecclesiastical Authority is ALSO a Circular Position. Why can’t you folks SEE that!"

I see it but so far that just puts me in line for crap if I ask either group something. I've been informed that if I don't understand a specific interpretation in light of another verse, I'm just blind due to not having faith. Those blind Bereans should have been told that, they could have spent a lot more time watching football.

I've also been informed that if I just took the word of the Church for it I'd be OK whether I understand it or not. So, it seems like Faith alone is equally important to both groups since both sometimes assert that unless you shut up and agree with them you have no Faith. I still don't get why it isn't Grace alone rather than Faith alone but, whatever.