Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

[MonFrere]

(Mat 15:6 NRSV) So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.

Protestants are quite fond of bringing up any scripture that mentions tradition and then proceed to beat up Catholics with it since they presume they are based solely on the Word of God (the Bible) and not tradition. However, the major rallying cry of the Reformation was “SOLA SCRIPTURA”. If a Protestant will not accept this as a Protestant tradition they are self-deceived – at best.

But Jesus Himself gave us A standard (which IMO is not the only standard by any means - but a good one for this conversation) by which to judge tradition. Tradition CANNOT void the Word of God. For the sake of helping the Protestant let’s limit our focus on the Word of God to the Bible. Tradition cannot make void the Bible. Does SOLA SCRIPTURA pass that test? NO, in fact, it fails miserably. Why? because with all the various “interpretations” of scripture that this Protestant Template has devised it has effectively emasculated the Bible and effectively made it VOID and of NONE EFFECT. Thereby SOLA SCRIPTURA fails Jesus’ test because no honest soul seeking truth can find security in what other honest sincere souls say the Bible means. SOLA SCRIPTURA makes the Bible ineffective and useless.

For the sake of the Protestant tradition of SOLA SCRIPTURA, you have made void the word of God.

MonFrere

 

[crazzeto]

How about:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P111.HTM

13

Thus those who serve well as deacons gain good standing and much confidence in their faith in Christ Jesus.

14

6 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.

15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Or how about:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10Q.HTM

11

As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,

12

exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

13

And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that,in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now atwork in you who believe.

14

3 For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews,

And then theres:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZG.HTM

1

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

2

1 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

3

2 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.

One could go on.

 

[teak421]

Protestants are quite fond of bringing up any scripture that mentions tradition and then proceed to beat up Catholics with it since they presume they are based solely on the Word of God (the Bible) and not tradition. However, the major rallying cry of the Reformation was “SOLA SCRIPTURA”. If a Protestant will not accept this as a Protestant tradition they are self-deceived – at best.

But Jesus Himself gave us A standard (which IMO is not the only standard by any means - but a good one for this conversation) by which to judge tradition. Tradition CANNOT void the Word of God. For the sake of helping the Protestant let’s limit our focus on the Word of God to the Bible. Tradition cannot make void the Bible. Does SOLA SCRIPTURA pass that test? NO, in fact, it fails miserably. Why? because with all the various “interpretations” of scripture that this Protestant Template has devised it has effectively emasculated the Bible and effectively made it VOID and of NONE EFFECT. Thereby SOLA SCRIPTURA fails Jesus’ test because no honest soul seeking truth can find security in what other honest sincere souls say the Bible means. SOLA SCRIPTURA makes the Bible ineffective and useless.

For the sake of the Protestant tradition of SOLA SCRIPTURA, you have made void the word of God.

MonFrere

Very interesting point… Permission to reuse your argument.

 

[MonFrere]

Very interesting point… Permission to reuse your argument.

ABSOLUTELY!!

MonFrere

 

[RedBert]

thanks for solving the 400 plus year old issue with one Bible verse: I especially like the way you use the word tradition instead of doctrine.

You convinced me and I am sure other church going, small group attending , Tuesday night Bible studying, chapter a day reading Protestants will also be convinced.

 

[MonFrere]

thanks for solving the 400 plus year old issue with one Bible verse: I especially like the way you use the word tradition instead of doctrine.

How about putting some meat on this rather bony sentence.

MonFrere

 

[teak421]

thanks for solving the 400 plus year old issue with one Bible verse: I especially like the way you use the word tradition instead of doctrine.

You convinced me and I am sure other church going, small group attending , Tuesday night Bible studying, chapter a day reading Protestants will also be convinced.

What specific issue(s) do you have with the argument that was presented?

• Michael

 

[RedBert]

A few of my objections:

You state“since they presume they are based solely on the Word of God (the Bible) and not tradition”.

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

“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

Upon examination of Wesley’s work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
• Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
• Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
• Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
• Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”[3]

So you have mis-stated the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura​

You state “tradition of SOLA SCRIPTURA”
Please Google the definitions of doctrine and tradition.​

You state that “, the major rallying cry of the Reformation was "SOLA SCRIPTURA

All 5 solas go together: none was more important than the other
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

This is the rallying cry:
“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.”​

You state “ Tradition CANNOT void the Word of God.”
Agreed:
Reformation: wiki
“The movement began as an attempt to reform the Catholic Church. Many western Catholics were troubled by what they saw as false doctrines and malpractices within the church, particularly involving the teaching and sale of indulgences. Another major contention was the practice of buying and selling church positions (simony) and what was seen at the time as considerable corruption within the church’s hierarchy. This corruption was seen by many at the time as systemic, even reaching the position of the Pope.”

The reformation was in response to practices (traditions) that went against the Word of God.

Here is a list of current Catholic traditions that some would say go against the word of God:
bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm
I don’t agree with all of them, (and I don’t want to get off topic), but you get the idea.

Summary of this point is that the RCC is the one that had /has traditions that went against the Word of God​

You state “all the various “interpretations” of scripture that this Protestant Template has devised it has effectively emasculated the Bible and effectively made it VOID and of NONE EFFECT” and “you have made void the word of God.”

Another mis-characterization: from catholic.com/library/Fundamentalism.asp

“The belief that is first and foremost the defining characteristic of Fundamentalists is their reliance on the Bible. “

Protestants would never consider the Bible VOID and of NONE EFFECT.

We test all things according to Scripture, we leave Churches that go against Scripture.
Yes there are disagreements on secondary issues, style of worship .etc…
That does not void the Bible​

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.​

This has been debated for over 400 years.( maybe much more)

I know I will not convince anyone in a posting : I ask that you state the issues accurately.

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,

 

[RedBert]

Here is what I have been seeing in these forums:

If someone is on “your side” ,and they mis-state a doctrine, you will let it slide; as long as they are on “your side”.

When a Catholic brother or sister is off base with a characterization of protestant doctrine or beliefs, please consider clarifying the issue.

A little intellectual honesty would go a long way.​

"For non-Catholics to respect us, they have to see us criticizing ourselves and not closing ranks and pretending that we are above all the errors with which everyone else struggles. This truth is obvious, and outsiders see it already, so we have to deal with it frankly.

Any viewpoint that is self-confident and healthy needs to engage criticism openly and honestly, no matter what the forum is.** Protestants do that all the time. They write whole books about problems in their ranks. It is a sign of health and vigor."**

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

 

[Ginger2]

The Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible is the written word. It is a physical tool God has prepare for us.
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Obviously, when Jesus told us the Scriptures cannot be broken, he was not talking about a series of books translated from the writings of the prophets and apostles.

Many false gospels have been written. Many bible translations have been accidentally and intentionally distorted.

Even Catholic Bibles have been admitted to contain errors.

The Scriptures cannot be broken means:

God does not change.
if someone mistranslates Scriptures to say something other than what was originally intended, it doesn’t change God’s law

The Bible is one way to test if something is true or false.
The Holy Spirit is another way.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
God has warned us not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits because even satan masquerades as an angel of light.
Even God’s creation assists us in discerning truth.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It seems to me Catholics are the ones “emasculating” the Bible and making it null and void.

Catholics claim the Bible cannot be understood but that tradition will teach clearly.

Then what need do you have for the Holy Scriptures?

 

[RedBert]

“A little intellectual honesty would go a long way.”

for ex: Ginger2 is wrong on so many accounts, even he or she is “on my side”

the Bible is the Word of God
gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

We have very accurate transcriptions of the Bible including an almost complete copy of the Gospel of John from prior to 200 AD
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66
carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability

 

[Foreigner]

Protestants are quite fond of bringing up any scripture that mentions tradition and then proceed to beat up Catholics with it since they presume they are based solely on the Word of God (the Bible) and not tradition. However, the major rallying cry of the Reformation was “SOLA SCRIPTURA”. If a Protestant will not accept this as** a Protestant tradition** they are self-deceived – at best.

Quite true… unless they perceive the Scripture itself does indeed teach this concept.

But Jesus Himself gave us A standard (which IMO is not the only standard by any means - but a good one for this conversation) by which to judge tradition. Tradition CANNOT void the Word of God. For the sake of helping the Protestant let’s limit our focus on the Word of God to the Bible. Tradition cannot make void the Bible. Does SOLA SCRIPTURA pass that test? NO, in fact, it fails miserably. Why? because with all the various “interpretations” of scripture that this Protestant Template has devised it has effectively emasculated the Bible and effectively made it VOID and of NONE EFFECT.

Well sorta not quite… the problem here is when Protestants from various denominations which disagree with each other in the manner you have described do pretend to be of one mind concerning Sola Scriptura. Essentially they are arguing that even though they disagree with each other, they agree that they should be approaching the truth in this manner theoretically speaking. Their disagreements then do not really do not really indicate the concept is wrong. It only indicates that each one of them thinks the other is abusing the concept with misinterpretations. In other words, one cannot refute the concept on this basis of how it is used or on the basis of the result. It must be refuted on the basis that the concept is wrong before anyone even begins to interpret Scripture.

Thereby SOLA SCRIPTURA fails Jesus’ test because no honest soul seeking truth can find security in what other honest sincere souls say the Bible means. SOLA SCRIPTURA makes the Bible ineffective and useless.

For the sake of the Protestant tradition of SOLA SCRIPTURA, you have made void the word of God.

MonFrere

I would agree they do indeed nullify the Scriptures for the sake of their tradition. But not for the reasons you give. The final Word which God gave to mankind was a person named Jesus Christ, the Good Teacher, who dwells in human hearts and whose voice is heard by those who love him. There is not the slightest reason to believe God ever wanted a group of men in the fourth century to gather up a bunch of scrolls, decide which ones were “inspired” and which were not, and compile them together into one volume called “the Word of God.” People simply affirm this to themselves without having any evidence God wanted such a thing to occur. And so they exchanged Jesus Christ for a book when the Word of God had indeed become flesh, died and rose again, and now dwells in the hearts of believers, those who hear his voice.

 

[RedBert]

"There is not the slightest reason to believe God ever wanted a group of men in the* fourth century *to gather up a bunch of scrolls, decide which ones were “inspired” and which were not, and compile them together into one volume called “the Word of God.” "

Another mis statement !!

all quotes below from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

"Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries."

One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul’s letters

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8:

“It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a **special **status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church.”

 

[RedBert]

Word of God had indeed become flesh,

You are confusing the reference in John 1 with the written or spoken word.

Do you know what the Greek word for “Word” is in John:1 ?

It is Logos.

It doesn’t translate well into English

 

[Foreigner]

Word of God had indeed become flesh,

You are confusing the reference in John 1 with the written or spoken word.

Not confusing anything. There is no disconnect as people desire. This language is used for a reason.

Do you know what the Greek word for “Word” is in John:1 ?

It is Logos.

Same Greek word you would use if you were calling the Bible “the Word of God” in Greek.

 

[teak421]

Word of God had indeed become flesh,

You are confusing the reference in John 1 with the written or spoken word.

Do you know what the Greek word for “Word” is in John:1 ?

It is Logos.

It doesn’t translate well into English

Do you believe the Word of God is Jesus… Written Word and Oral Teachings?

• Michael

 

[Foreigner]

"There is not the slightest reason to believe God ever wanted a group of men in the* fourth century ***to gather up a bunch of scrolls, decide which ones were “inspired” and which were not, and compile them together into one volume called “the Word of God.” "

Another mis statement !!

all quotes below from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

"Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries."

One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul’s letters

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8:

“It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a **special **status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church.”

No “mis statement” here. Are you suggesting this never happened?

…A group of men in the fourth century ]to gather up a bunch of scrolls, decide which ones were “inspired” and which were not, and compile them together into one volume called “the Word of God.”

If not, what was the canon in A.D. 530 and how did anyone know what it was?

 

[Foreigner]

Do you believe the Word of God is Jesus… Written Word and Oral Teachings?

• Michael

NO. And your question contains a presumption I am already contesting. Bit of a problem with that dontcha think?

 

[Ginger2]

“A little intellectual honesty would go a long way.”

for ex: Ginger2 is wrong on so many accounts, even he or she is “on my side”

the Bible is the Word of God
gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

Are you suggesting it is impossible for anyone to write a corrupt bible?

Take a look at the NWT or the KJV or the Douay Rheims. All have errors that could mislead well intentioned individuals. It is the Spirit of God that prevents this from being a permanent state, because God doesn’t err nor change.

We have very accurate transcriptions of the Bible including an almost complete copy of the Gospel of John from prior to 200 AD
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66
carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability

I said God has not prevented people from mistranslating original manuscripts.

What good does an original intact writing, if we were to find one, do for someone who can’t read Hebrew or Greek. That person is dependent upon other human beings for a translation into a language they can read. If the translator makes a mistake or intentionally translates passages according to what he thinks these passages should say, instead of what the passages actually say,…

has that person been left totally helpless by God? or Is the Holy Spirit going to call His own to truth?

I am stating Protestants, in general, are not dependent upon translations of inspired writings. We are supposed to depend on God.

However, I have been wrong many times in my life, and I try to rise above human pride, acknowledge my error and thank the person for the info or correction.

Ginger

 

[RedBert]

"Same Greek word you would use if you were calling the Bible “the Word of God” in Greek. "

nope: you couldn’t be more wrong on that.

“easy” to follow Greek tranlations here at
biblos.com/john/1-1.htm

Read vs 1-3. John introduces us to an entity he calls “the Word.” This is the Greek word logos. Since John is writing to Greeks, he uses their own philosophical term as the starting point for his message. From their observation of order in the external universe and human rationality, they believed there must be some universal “reason” which undergirds reality and provides meaning for the universe. They sometimes called this “cosmic rationality” (or Ultimate Reality) the logos.

Their problem was that they didn’t know where to go from there. There was endless speculation and disagreement about the nature of this logos: is it personal or impersonal? is it eternal or temporal? what is its relationship to the material world? is it interested or disinterested in individual humans?

Using their own term for Ultimate Reality, John answers their questions with a series of block-buster assertions. What humans can only guess at by observation, John reveals to us in this passage.

The logos is eternal (vs 1a). “In any beginning already was the logos.” The logos is the uncaused Cause, the self-existent Ground of Reality beyond which it is impossible to go.

The logos is the Creator of the universe (vs 3). The universe is not eternal (NATURALISTS), nor is it somehow God (ANIMISM & PANTHEISM). It was “spoken into existence” by the logos (Gen. 1 >> CONFIRMATION OF BIG-BANG).

The logos is a Person. The logos is not called “it,” but “he” (vs 2) and “him” (vs 3).

The logos is deity, or God (vs 1c). The Greek emphasizes this. Because of the above, the logos clearly deserves this title.

The logos is also personally distinct from God (vs 1b,2). He is both God, and was also always “face to face” with God. This is one of many passages (OT and NT) that reveal that God while God is a unity in his essence, he exists as more than one Person. We call this the “Trinity.” Here, two of these three Persons are mentioned: God the Father (“God” and God the Son (called “the logos”).

---

Do you believe the Word of God is Jesus… Written Word and Oral Teachings?***

If you are asking if I think Jesus is the Bible or if Jesus is a Sermon; the answer is no.

If you asking if I think Jesus is the Truth and do I think the Bible is the Truth , the answer is yes.

Logos ( and Truth ) is a concept not a single word defintion.