Sola Scriptura is Wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamalayka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kamalayka

Guest
Here is why Sola Scriptura is wrong:

The authors of the NT were writing to Christians, meaning people who already knew the “basics” of the faith.
The authors of the NT books took for granted the fact that their intended audience already knew about apostolic succession, church authority, the sacraments, etc.

I mean, would it have really been necessary for Paul to state everything the Church teaches in every single letter, if the people receiving his letters already knew it?

Of course not!

If a bishop today were to write a letter to a church, he won’t go into detail about what the Church teaches. Why?

Because everybody already knows it!
Think of it this way:

If President Obama wrote a letter to a Senator, would he include a page in the letter explaining what America stands for?

It is the same reason why some things were not mentioned in the NT books:

IT WAS NOT NECESSARY!!!
 
Kamalayka said:
Here is why Sola Scriptura is wrong:

The authors of the NT were writing to Christians, meaning people who already knew the “basics” of the faith.
The authors of the NT books took for granted the fact that their intended audience already knew about apostolic succession, church authority, the sacraments, etc.

I mean, would it have really been necessary for Paul to state everything the Church teaches in every single letter, if the people receiving his letters already knew it?

Of course not!

If a bishop today were to write a letter to a church, he won’t go into detail about what the Church teaches. Why?

Because everybody already knows it!
Think of it this way:

If President Obama wrote a letter to a Senator, would he include a page in the letter explaining what America stands for?

It is the same reason why some things were not mentioned in the NT books:

IT WAS NOT NECESSARY!!!
Click to expand...
Isn’t the narrative simply what a person needs to basically know about salvation if they believe?

I’m seeing your plea to defend papal primacy and other issues, and wonder why you don’t make a case in doing so.

Can you elaborate a bit more than simply say it is, or must be so.
 
Kamalayka said:
Here is why Sola Scriptura is wrong:

The authors of the NT were writing to Christians, meaning people who already knew the “basics” of the faith.
The authors of the NT books took for granted the fact that their intended audience already knew about apostolic succession, church authority, the sacraments, etc.

I mean, would it have really been necessary for Paul to state everything the Church teaches in every single letter, if the people receiving his letters already knew it?

Of course not!

If a bishop today were to write a letter to a church, he won’t go into detail about what the Church teaches. Why?

Because everybody already knows it!
Think of it this way:

If President Obama wrote a letter to a Senator, would he include a page in the letter explaining what America stands for?

It is the same reason why some things were not mentioned in the NT books:

IT WAS NOT NECESSARY!!!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that many Catholics or even some Protestant understand what we mean by Sola Scriptura. What do you think we believe when we state that we hold to Sola Scriptura?
 
I mean this:

From wikipedia:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
 
Kamalayka said:
Here is why Sola Scriptura is wrong:

The authors of the NT were writing to Christians, meaning people who already knew the “basics” of the faith.
The authors of the NT books took for granted the fact that their intended audience already knew about apostolic succession, church authority, the sacraments, etc.

I mean, would it have really been necessary for Paul to state everything the Church teaches in every single letter, if the people receiving his letters already knew it?
Click to expand...
I disagree with many of your assumptions:
When I read the Bible I see the “main and plain” things often repeated.

I can list a dozen verses where Paul is teaching the basics over and over again.
ex: 1 Corinthians 15
I am forced to question your knowledge of the Bible that you didn’t know that.

Also :“Biblical scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s.” -wiki

Are you saying the Christians knew about apostolic succession in 50 AD?

btw: the the Early Christian Church was headquartered in Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 AD : is that what you meant when you say they knew about church authority?
 
RedBert said:
btw: the the Early Christian Church was headquartered in Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 AD : is that what you meant when you say they knew about church authority?
Click to expand...
Where Church leaders were located is not relevant to their authority.

From Acts 15:

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us **without our authorization **and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
 
Kamalayka said:
I mean this:

From wikipedia:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
Click to expand...
Hmmm The doctrine, which states that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, comes from wikipedia and not the Bible :hmmm:

I see you have been banned so I wont hold my breath on a comment from you about this contradiction.

God bless
 
This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, ]which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
 
RedBert said:
This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, ]which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Click to expand...
I agree with Augustine, on the above quote and on this one:

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
 
"An objective study of history shows that the doctrine of sola scriptura has provided neither a clear nor consistent rule for the Christian faith. The problems with the “Bible only” philosophy were perceived in the early church by St. Vincent of Lerins, who, writing in the year 434, makes the following observation:

“Here someone may ask: since the canon os scriptures is complete, and is in itself adequate, why is there any need to join to its authority the understanding of the Church? Because Holy Scripture, on account of its depth, is not accepted in a universal sense. the same statement are interpreted in one person, in another sense by someone else, with the result, that there seem to be as many opinions as there are people…
Therefore, on account of the number and variety of errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the Catholic Church.” ~ Alister E, McGrath, ed. The Christian Theology Reader (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, ltd 1995), pp. 50-51"

DId Jesus intend to establish His Church on the basis of sola scriptura? Or did our Savior whoi said He would build His church upon a certain rock and who gave to the man called Rock (Petros) the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) intend something other then a sola scriptura Church (or Churches)? This is the question we must ask as we approach the dawn of the third millennium of the Christian era."
 
Kamalayka said:
If President Obama wrote a letter to a Senator, would he include a page in the letter explaining what America stands for?
Click to expand...
I would hope so. I don’t think President Obama or most of his democratic majority Congress have any idea what America stands for. 🤷
 
Roman_Catholic said:
Hmmm The doctrine, which states that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, comes from wikipedia and not the Bible :hmmm:

I see you have been banned so I wont hold my breath on a comment from you about this contradiction.

God bless
Click to expand...
That is the most telling point against sola scripture. The doctrine makes claims for the Bible that the Bible itself does not make and does not support in its contents. In fact, passages of Holy Scripture specifically deny that it records everything.

In other words, sola scriptura is non-scriptural.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
of course the Bible does not record everything:
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
—John 21:25

Thats’s not the point: the point is does conatain ALL that is necessary for salvation and holiness? And that answer is yes
.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
—2 Timothy 3:16-17

Do we need to add to it? that answer is no.
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
–Proverbs 30:5-6:

The Bible clearly tells us that God’s Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God’s Word warns us against following it.
 
It seems as if some of you are deliberatly trying to misstate the doctrine for your own purposes. Soft of like if I came here and said the doctrine of the RCC was to worship Mary. I’d be spreading falsehood - so are some of you.

Sola Scripture does not say all true is recorded in the Bible, nor does it imply that everything God wants us to know is there. Simply, we state that only Scripture, the living, breathing Word of God, is the only inerrant souce of knowledge of God. Everything else, traditions, revelations, teachings and rumors, must be tested against that source and cannot be elavated to the same level of authority.

So, please stop spreading falsehoods.
 
ChosenAndCalled said:
It seems as if some of you are deliberatly trying to misstate the doctrine for your own purposes.
Click to expand...
No, at the very least one of us (me) allowed the OP to state what he or she meant by SS and the definition given was:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
Click to expand...
This doctrine (as provided by the OP of this thread), not from the Scriptures, says that all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness is found within the Scriptures. Which tells me one of two things, 1) sola scriptura (as defined by the OP of this thread) is unscriptural or 2) belief in SS is not necassary for salvation or holiness which makes me wonder; is it worth continuing the split in Christendom over? After all, all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness is found within the Scriptures and SS is not found therein.
Soft of like if I came here and said the doctrine of the RCC was to worship Mary. I’d be spreading falsehood - so are some of you.
Click to expand...
Yes you would be. However it is not Catholics who have stated what the doctrine is in this thread. It was a non-Catholic Christian. So your example does not compare. We have been discussing the definition given. We (or at least I do) understand that SS means different things to different people.
So, please stop spreading falsehoods.
Click to expand...
Take it up with the OP.

To further discussion and to add a different and more defensible explanation of the Doctrine:

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

God bless you
 
It seems I mistook Kamalayka for a different poster. I am not sure if Kamalayka is a non-Catholic Christian or not 🤷 Judging from the person’s posts in a different thread about how Catholic Bibles are always mistranslated I am guessing he or she is not Catholic but I am not sure.

My previous post still applies. We allowed the OP of the thread to present what he or she meant by Sola Scriptura.

God bless
 
I have been at this for over 30 years; no one is going to convince anyone else in a discussion board

Sola Scriptura does not exist in a vacuum; it goes with the other 5 solas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas.

The reformation was in response to the conditions of the RCC at that time .

Since the reformation, the RCC has continued to move closer the summary statement below.

“By God’s Holy Scripture alone, teach us that salvation is by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.”​

It saddens me that I have been in about 15 Catholic churches in the last 5 years ( yes I know that is not every one) and have yet to see a Bible in the pews.

great article here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
"The Bible-reading habits of Catholics lag far behind those of Evangelical Protestants. "

…many Catholics—to not read the Bible at all so as to not be “confused” or “led astray”—is lamentable, “kindergarten Christianity” laziness. The same people who are guilty of this shortcoming usually find plenty of time to devote to the “study” of sports, politics, their latest boyfriend or girlfriend, their lawns and gardens, and so on. Yet somehow they can’t find any time to read their Bibles and soak in the words of the very Lord they worship and receive every week.
 
RedBert said:
of

The Bible clearly tells us that God’s Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God’s Word warns us against following it.
Click to expand...
Yes there is, and it is much more explicit:

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
 
RedBert said:
I -------------------

It saddens me that I have been in about 15 Catholic churches in the last 5 years ( yes I know that is not every one) and have yet to see a Bible in the pews.

.
Click to expand...
There is more bible reading in Catholic masses than in protestant services. I converted to Catholicism and I have read more bible readings in Church than I ever did as a protestant.

Every Sunday we have three bible readings in addition to a responsorial psalm.

We read from the Old Testament, and epistle, and the Gospel.

If you have actually been to mass then you are being dishonest.
 
“Every Sunday we have three bible readings in addition to a responsorial psalm.”

too funny
that is not what I meant by Bible reading.

I am talking about what this article is talking about.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

"I have read more bible readings in Church "

Breaking news: you can read the Bible at home
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top