Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

[GeneGee]

From my reading of both bibles is that they are the same… The Catholic bible has 7 more books in the Old Testament, the title of the last book in the bible is greek where the other is in Latin same meaning and they inserted a line in the Our Father prayer… I never heard of Sola Scriptura and plan ot read up on it after l close.

 

[fdesales]

Matthew 15:1-9
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites

Traditions outside of Scripture is what Jesus was ticked about.

That is incorrect. I have heard this statement often, but it fails to actually take into account what Jesus is speaking about.

He is addressing a tradition that CIRCUMVENTS THE COMMANDMENTS. Look at what you bolded! Korban is not a problem with Jesus because it is “outside of Scriptures”, but rather, because it circumvents the command and obligation to honor one’s parents. Korban allowed a person to “place” his money into the Temple and tell his parents that he had no money to give to the parents, while still having access to that money. It was an attempt to shirk one’s duties to one’s elderly parents. This was a “tradition” that Jesus was attacking. They were hypocrites because they pretended to give to the Temple, but they did it to shield their money. God knows the inner thoughts of man.

Jesus does not attack “traditions” because they are “not found in the Scriptures” at any point. This is a failure to identify WHAT Christ is attacking.

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. …

This is probably Jesus greatest demonstration of righteous anger aimed at the Pharisees for what amounts to labors or works put onto the people outside of His word. Woe, which was used seven times, means cursed or damned.

Again, you are PRESUMING that Jesus is attacking “non-Biblical traditions”. However, in NO CASE do we find Jesus saying any of that. He attacks hypocritical action. Teaching one thing and doing another. Whether something is found in the Bible or not is inconsequential in Jesus’ attack here. He attacks BEHAVIOR, not content of teaching… And thus, you defend your non-biblical tradition (sola scriptura), which is hypocritical behavior, is it not?

The New Testament authors, including the Lord, when dealing with spiritual truth always appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority.

“ALWAYS”???

Clearly, you are unaware of the Scriptures, for Paul appeals to HIS OWN TEACHINGS as the final authority. It matters NOT whether they were given in oral or in written form (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6). He tells the Corinthians in his first letter (1 Cor 15:1) to stand fast to the teachings given. Obviously, they were given orally, since this is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Look at Galatians 1:6-9. Is Paul worried about the Bible as his authority???

And in Matthew 5, Jesus says “you have heard it said, but I TELL YOU”… He is appealing to HIMSELF. Not the Scriptures…

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the exact effect,

There is no statement, exact or implied, that suggests that ALL doctrines or beliefs must be found in the written Bible. What good would such a statement mean to the first Christians, who did not yet HAVE a New Testament??? Clearly, Acts 15 suggests that sola scriptura was NOT part of the Christian faith… Otherwise, what Scriptural warrant did Peter use to loosen the requirement of circumcision??? HOW DARE HE?

And where does the Bible tell us that the oral teachings that Paul told the Thessolonicans have been abrogated, swallowed up by written words??? WHERE does this “tradition” begin, in the Bible? If Sola Scriptura were consistent to its OWN RULES, then we would expect to find SOMEWHERE that states “from now on, oral tradition is done” or “the words in this book shall be your sole guide to Christ” or some such statement.

We find nothing, explicit or implicit, that suggests that the Bible alone is the sole source of our faith. In fact, the Bible states otherwise…

THIS is the final nail in the coffin of sola scriptura…

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:11-13

Here, we have, in the bible, ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints, so that we may become in the full measure of the stature of Christ. Not the Bible. It is the teachers of the faith, prophets, teachers, and pastors. If there is another means of perfecting the saints for edifying the body, unto perfecting a man, then sola scriptura is no longer sola…

Many doctrines in the Bible are not explicitly stated, yet are taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. But, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from overwhelming implicit biblical extensions.

OVERWHELMING??? You overstate your case. Even today, I come across numerous people who, with their bible in hand, refuse to believe that Jesus is God or that there is a Trinity… Sola Scriptura fails because the Bible does not interpret itself. A living Church (people) is required to interpret it.

Regards

 

[crazzeto]

From my reading of both bibles is that they are the same… The Catholic bible has 7 more books in the Old Testament, the title of the last book in the bible is greek where the other is in Latin same meaning and they inserted a line in the Our Father prayer… I never heard of Sola Scriptura and plan ot read up on it after l close.

There are some verse differences, in fact you can find several hundered OT references made by Christ & Others which you can’t match to a non-septuingant OT exactly. Here’s a full list

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine of the bible being the “final authority” in matters of faith and morals.

 

[joannazenobia]

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine of the bible being the “final authority” in matters of faith and morals.

This is a very interesting conversation, hope no one minds if I make an observation.

 

[joannazenobia]

This is a very interesting conversation, hope no one minds if I make an observation.

(having computer issues…sorry! )

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine of the bible being the “final authority” in matters of faith and morals.

This is the way I define “final authority”

From my Catholic point of view, my understanding is that ‘Authoriy’ is passed on directly from Christ himself when he anointed his disciples. Then his disciples did the same thing when they anointed their own disciples like Jesus and so on and so forth. Jesus, our Lord and King, came to establish a Kingdom. A King needs a prime minister in charge of his kingdom while he is away from his palace. Whenvever a King goes off to fight in battle with his knights or soldiers, he never leaves his Kingdom without giving someone authority over it while he is away. Jesus would not have come to build a kingdom then leave us all alone without someone in charge to continue the tradition. This authority has been passed on directly through anointing.

When the Apostles created more disciples through this anointing, this “authority” over the Kingdom was passed on from Jesus and so on, thereby creating a ‘court’ so to speak.

Finally in any kingdom, a King also need “knights”. This ‘authority’ is passed on when a Bishop lays his hands, or rather takes his finger and anoints a catholic with oil on the forehead, in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

From a catholic point of view…and I know this has probably been debated before, but that’s how I believe authority is established. So, any ‘final authority’, for ME, has to come directly from this annointing process and defends the Scriptures and Canons.

To my knowledge…this “authority” is broken in the Protestant church. If my priest tommorow says, “I am going to authorize the marriage of same sex”, or if he decides to teach anything that is not the Canon, I can report him to his Bishop and he can get excommunicated.

This happened in a Protastant church where I was married and there was no authority to stop the Pastor, so many long-standing members of the church left.

Again…this is just from my own point of view, my own personal insight is that you can’t go against this tradition and break from the Catholic church and call it the “final authority” in matters of faith and morals? Maybe I’m just misunderstanding what is meant by “final authority”.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Yes, and all the above doctrines were determined BY THE CHURCH. Which of these “dogmas” were determined by Protestant denominations? Not a one. Your camp has come up with “the Rapture” - the Health and Wealth Gospel - the Late Great Planet Earth and all manner of prophetic failures. Not a very impressive lot of doctrines when holding to SS. Our Church, by the Holy Spirit, was lead to understand the person of Christ and the nature of God – Doctrines that are absolutely foundational to Christianity AND at the same time not withholden to SS.

Protestants admit that SS was not the operating template by the OT Jews or the NT Church as reflected in the scriptures of those first decades after the first Pentecost. You would have us believe that “somewhere in time” SS became operational. A point that I like to make is that Jesus disciples heard Jesus absolutely rail at the Pharisees for their corrupt traditions AND IN SPITE OF THAT still tell the Church to hold to the traditions they’ve been taught. Like I began this thread – the real test of Tradition is that if it makes the word of God of none effect. The fruit of the Protestant Tradition of SS are ideas like the Rapture and the Health and Wealth Gospel and all manner of The End of the World prophesies – all doctrines that made the word of God of none effect. The fruit of Catholic Tradition is the doctrines of the Trinity and the Nature of God and the Person of Christ – doctrines foundation to all of Christianity.

MonFrere

What made their rituals and traditions corrupt in Jesus view? They were added to His word given to the Jews through the prophets; the same thing we see today. They made stuff up contrary to God’s revelations.

Yet’ Jesus saved His greatest condemnation for those religious zealots that added to His commands or word. The reality is that the Jewish leaders defined God commands by their traditions and rituals, which is why Jesus “woe’d” them. The one’s He told follow the traditions of the early fathers and prophets were the one’s keeping in accord with the commands given, for example the leopard that was cleansed and Jesus sent to show himself to the priest and to offer the sacrifice according to Moses.

Can you name one instance when a writer of the NT referred to anything outside of Scripture in reference to faith and the moral law?

I might also add that rituals or tradition is not wrong and can be beneficial, but when it begins to define Scripture, then God takes issue.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

You’ve just given us the very definition of Sacred Tradition and provided several examples of it, yet you continue to deny it’s importance.

ChadS

That would be one opinion and just that an opinion. Sacred tradition is simple the Word of God. Extraneous tradition is that outside of the word of God and changes it. This is what the Pharisees got in trouble for.

The traditions or doctrines or teachings, which ever label you chose, has always been there; it is not invented but revealed and grouped or put into something we can see; they were “discovered” if you will, but never added. Sola Scriptura is no different. Those that deny it deny the gospel of grace as well, which is how Paul put it. Justification is and always has been by faith alone in God alone; it has always been a gift from God. To say that anything has to be added to faith such as baptism is to add a doctrine to God’s gift, which means His grace and Jesus death was insufficient to justify a man before God, which is another gospel.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

From my reading of both bibles is that they are the same… The Catholic bible has 7 more books in the Old Testament, the title of the last book in the bible is greek where the other is in Latin same meaning and they inserted a line in the Our Father prayer… I never heard of Sola Scriptura and plan ot read up on it after l close.

Question: “What is sola scriptura?”

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture.

Source: GotQuestions.org

 

[ChadS]

That would be one opinion and just that an opinion. Sacred tradition is simple the Word of God. Extraneous tradition is that outside of the word of God and changes it. This is what the Pharisees got in trouble for.

The traditions or doctrines or teachings, which ever label you chose, has always been there; it is not invented but revealed and grouped or put into something we can see; they were “discovered” if you will, but never added. Sola Scriptura is no different. Those that deny it deny the gospel of grace as well, which is how Paul put it. Justification is and always has been by faith alone in God alone; it has always been a gift from God. To say that anything has to be added to faith such as baptism is to add a doctrine to God’s gift, which means His grace and Jesus death was insufficient to justify a man before God, which is another gospel.

I see. Denying Sola Scriptura in no way denys grace. Baptism is just another “doctrine” invented by men? You will never find a Catholic that denies that Christ’s death was somehow insufficient. If that’s what you believe Catholic theology teaches than perhaps you should brush up on that a little before telling us what the Church teaches.

ChadS

 

[Timothy_Piper]

That is incorrect. I have heard this statement often, but it fails to actually take into account what Jesus is speaking about.

He is addressing a tradition that CIRCUMVENTS THE COMMANDMENTS. Look at what you bolded! Korban is not a problem with Jesus because it is “outside of Scriptures”, but rather, because it circumvents the command and obligation to honor one’s parents. Korban allowed a person to “place” his money into the Temple and tell his parents that he had no money to give to the parents, while still having access to that money. It was an attempt to shirk one’s duties to one’s elderly parents. This was a “tradition” that Jesus was attacking. They were hypocrites because they pretended to give to the Temple, but they did it to shield their money. God knows the inner thoughts of man.

Jesus does not attack “traditions” because they are “not found in the Scriptures” at any point. This is a failure to identify WHAT Christ is attacking.

Again, you are PRESUMING that Jesus is attacking “non-Biblical traditions”. However, in NO CASE do we find Jesus saying any of that. He attacks hypocritical action. Teaching one thing and doing another. Whether something is found in the Bible or not is inconsequential in Jesus’ attack here. He attacks BEHAVIOR, not content of teaching… And thus, you defend your non-biblical tradition (sola scriptura), which is hypocritical behavior, is it not?

“ALWAYS”???

Clearly, you are unaware of the Scriptures, for Paul appeals to HIS OWN TEACHINGS as the final authority. It matters NOT whether they were given in oral or in written form (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6). He tells the Corinthians in his first letter (1 Cor 15:1) to stand fast to the teachings given. Obviously, they were given orally, since this is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Look at Galatians 1:6-9. Is Paul worried about the Bible as his authority???

And in Matthew 5, Jesus says “you have heard it said, but I TELL YOU”… He is appealing to HIMSELF. Not the Scriptures…

There is no statement, exact or implied, that suggests that ALL doctrines or beliefs must be found in the written Bible. What good would such a statement mean to the first Christians, who did not yet HAVE a New Testament??? Clearly, Acts 15 suggests that sola scriptura was NOT part of the Christian faith… Otherwise, what Scriptural warrant did Peter use to loosen the requirement of circumcision??? HOW DARE HE?

And where does the Bible tell us that the oral teachings that Paul told the Thessolonicans have been abrogated, swallowed up by written words??? WHERE does this “tradition” begin, in the Bible? If Sola Scriptura were consistent to its OWN RULES, then we would expect to find SOMEWHERE that states “from now on, oral tradition is done” or “the words in this book shall be your sole guide to Christ” or some such statement.

We find nothing, explicit or implicit, that suggests that the Bible alone is the sole source of our faith. In fact, the Bible states otherwise…

THIS is the final nail in the coffin of sola scriptura…

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:11-13

Here, we have, in the bible, ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints, so that we may become in the full measure of the stature of Christ. Not the Bible. It is the teachers of the faith, prophets, teachers, and pastors. If there is another means of perfecting the saints for edifying the body, unto perfecting a man, then sola scriptura is no longer sola…

OVERWHELMING??? You overstate your case. Even today, I come across numerous people who, with their bible in hand, refuse to believe that Jesus is God or that there is a Trinity… Sola Scriptura fails because the Bible does not interpret itself. A living Church (people) is required to interpret it.

Regards

I’m not trying to make a case friend; I only repeat what God has said and warned about. If the warning does not pertain to you, then you need not be concerned; if it does, then you need to take heed.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What are the two ways Paul taught, by mouth and by epistle. Did Paul have two messages; one by mouth and another by letter? Is it really very complicated? If you or anyone believe Paul or any other writer taught something not written in Scripture that pertains to Christian faith and practice, then provide your divine evidence so we all can learn more revelation from God than what is contained in the Bible. Sola Scriptura should be self evident; where else can you find and know divine revelation other than the Bible or creation?

Somehow you fail to connect that the Bible is referred to as the “living Word”, which is the very thoughts and words of God. Read John 1:1-2 & Hebrews 4:12 & Matthew 4:4 How did everyting come into being; He spoke it.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

(having computer issues…sorry! )

This is the way I define “final authority”

From my Catholic point of view, my understanding is that ‘Authoriy’ is passed on directly from Christ himself when he anointed his disciples. Then his disciples did the same thing when they anointed their own disciples like Jesus and so on and so forth. Jesus, our Lord and King, came to establish a Kingdom. A King needs a prime minister in charge of his kingdom while he is away from his palace. Whenvever a King goes off to fight in battle with his knights or soldiers, he never leaves his Kingdom without giving someone authority over it while he is away. Jesus would not have come to build a kingdom then leave us all alone without someone in charge to continue the tradition. This authority has been passed on directly through anointing.

When the Apostles created more disciples through this anointing, this “authority” over the Kingdom was passed on from Jesus and so on, thereby creating a ‘court’ so to speak.

Finally in any kingdom, a King also need “knights”. This ‘authority’ is passed on when a Bishop lays his hands, or rather takes his finger and anoints a catholic with oil on the forehead, in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

From a catholic point of view…and I know this has probably been debated before, but that’s how I believe authority is established. So, any ‘final authority’, for ME, has to come directly from this annointing process and defends the Scriptures and Canons.

To my knowledge…this “authority” is broken in the Protestant church. If my priest tommorow says, “I am going to authorize the marriage of same sex”, or if he decides to teach anything that is not the Canon, I can report him to his Bishop and he can get excommunicated.

This happened in a Protastant church where I was married and there was no authority to stop the Pastor, so many long-standing members of the church left.

Again…this is just from my own point of view, my own personal insight is that you can’t go against this tradition and break from the Catholic church and call it the “final authority” in matters of faith and morals? Maybe I’m just misunderstanding what is meant by “final authority”.

Thank you for your personal insights; hopefully you can reconcile them to the word of God; I tried and couldn’t for a variety of reasons.

 

[MonFrere]

Can you name one instance when a writer of the NT referred to anything outside of Scripture in reference to faith and the moral law?

The Hypostatic Union is no where at all in scripture – not hinted at not alluded to - not considered - not conceived YET in is the pillar of orthodoxy for understanding the Incarnation.

The way scripture is philosophically set is Hebrew in origin. Philosophically, much of the information on the hypostatic union of Christ is arrived at through Greek philosophy. Jesus is one person with two natures, one divine and one human. The Hebrew Scriptures do not conceive of men in terms of “natures”. So, here is a clear example where the ECF and the Catholic Church, came to an understanding (a pivotal one and THE orthodox one) that didn’t in the least contradict scripture however, is not at all a part of scripture BUT IS NECESSARY for orthodox Christian belief. This doctrine would be impossible to arrive at through Sola Scriptura.

Also, as another example – the determination that the Christian Sabbath was transferred to Sunday is something given no warrant, for certain in the OT - and this goes further than what St. Paul considers in his writings. However, by the time of the writing of St. John’s Apocalypse there is the comment that this vision was given to him on “the Lord’s Day” – a cryptic reference to the early Christian Tradition of worship of Sunday that is found also in the writings of the ECF. The change was accomplished BY THE CHURCH and could not have been arrived “by scripture alone”. This took an authoritative Church to determine because if one went by scripture alone THE CHURCH WOULD BE KEEPING SATURDAY STILL AS THE SABBATH.

The ramifications of the New Covenant vs the Old Covenant and the Church now seeing Gentiles becoming members of this New Church had to be thought through BY THE CHURCH – the scriptures the early decades of the Church possessed were the OT and the OT would have you quickly deemed a heretic and stoned for any attempt to do what the early Christian Church did in establishing the Church of Christ.

And one final thought – if the scriptures are sufficient in themselves - why was there any need to ADD TO THE SCRIPTURES that Jesus Himself used. So, when is enough - enough. The Catholic Church could have existed fine without the establishment of the
NT Canon – Protestants Church would be at a loss without the NT for the very fact that they reject Sacred Tradition as being authoritative. I’m absolutely sure the Protestant Church would be FAR DIFFERENT without the NT Canon given to them by the authority of the Catholic Church. We probably would still have an element of the church desiring circumcision - another element keeping various aspects of the Mosaic Law - others keeping the Sabbath - others keeping outdated Jewish traditions.

MonFrere

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I see. Denying Sola Scriptura in no way denys grace. Baptism is just another “doctrine” invented by men? You will never find a Catholic that denies that Christ’s death was somehow insufficient. If that’s what you believe Catholic theology teaches than perhaps you should brush up on that a little before telling us what the Church teaches.

ChadS

Which baptism are you speaking of the Bible tells of at least 4 of them; which are you referring to? Please clarifiy.

Catholics do teach that His death on the cross is insufficient for justification strictly on the merits of faith alone in God alone; read your CC; it will say faith alone, then add what i believe is water baptism or baptism…add anything to faith alone as the means of being justified by God which results in receiving the undeserved gift of salvation is to deny the essence of the gospel; it is the good news.

I am by no means asking you to believe what I say unless you are willing to read the Scripture for yourself and reach the same conclusion. All I can say is that chapter 11 of Hebrews, caled by some, the heroes of the FAITH chapter because it demonstrates how we are saved now, but also same the same as the OT’er were saved, there has been no change because He does not change.

 

[ccolley2]

What made their rituals and traditions corrupt in Jesus view? They were added to His word given to the Jews through the prophets; the same thing we see today. They made stuff up contrary to God’s revelations.

Can you name one instance when a writer of the NT referred to anything outside of Scripture in reference to faith and the moral law?

There is nothing in Scripture that is contrary to the Catholic faith and nothing in the Catholic faith that is contrary to Scripture. Can I name one? Yes, the Trinity, Bishops/presbyters/priests. And What about the passage at the end of John’s Gospel that says that everything that Jesus said and did was NOT written down…then there is…Tradition either by word of mouth or by letter…Paul refers to Tradition, but doesn’t tell us what the Tradition is…
1Cor 11:2
2Thess 2:15
2Thess 3:6

Also, we wouldn’t have a NT cannon if it weren’t for Sacred Tradition…The books that belonged in the New Testament were decided upon based on Tradition…the first writings of the NT were not written until 50 AD. By this time almost all the Apostles(exception of John) had been martyred for the faith.That means that for at least 20 years, the Christians depended on Traditions to teach them how to “do” “Church”. Also, the idea that John was the LAST apostle is based on Tradition. The Didache is one of the oldest writings that we have …it is also known as the Teaching of the Apostles - these were the Traditions that were passed down by word of mouth and passed on the Catechumens coming into the Church.
CC

 

[Timothy_Piper]

The Hypostatic Union is no where at all in scripture – not hinted at not alluded to - not considered - not conceived YET in is the pillar of orthodoxy for understanding the Incarnation.

The way scripture is philosophically set is Hebrew in origin. Philosophically, much of the information on the hypostatic union of Christ is arrived at through Greek philosophy. Jesus is one person with two natures, one divine and one human. The Hebrew Scriptures do not conceive of men in terms of “natures”. So, here is a clear example where the ECF and the Catholic Church, came to an understanding (a pivotal one and THE orthodox one) that didn’t in the least contradict scripture however, is not at all a part of scripture BUT IS NECESSARY for orthodox Christian belief. This doctrine would be impossible to arrive at through Sola Scriptura.

Also, as another example – the determination that the Christian Sabbath was transferred to Sunday is something given no warrant, for certain in the OT - and this goes further than what St. Paul considers in his writings. However, by the time of the writing of St. John’s Apocalypse there is the comment that this vision was given to him on “the Lord’s Day” – a cryptic reference to the early Christian Tradition of worship of Sunday that is found also in the writings of the ECF. The change was accomplished BY THE CHURCH and could not have been arrived “by scripture alone”. This took an authoritative Church to determine because if one went by scripture alone THE CHURCH WOULD BE KEEPING SATURDAY STILL AS THE SABBATH.

The ramifications of the New Covenant vs the Old Covenant and the Church now seeing Gentiles becoming members of this New Church had to be thought through BY THE CHURCH – the scriptures the early decades of the Church possessed were the OT and the OT would have you quickly deemed a heretic and stoned for any attempt to do what the early Christian Church did in establishing the Church of Christ.

And one final thought – if the scriptures are sufficient in themselves - why was there any need to ADD TO THE SCRIPTURES that Jesus Himself used. So, when is enough - enough. The Catholic Church could have existed fine without the establishment of the
NT Canon – Protestants Church would be at a loss without the NT for the very fact that they reject Sacred Tradition as being authoritative. I’m absolutely sure the Protestant Church would be FAR DIFFERENT without the NT Canon given to them by the authority of the Catholic Church. We probably would still have an element of the church desiring circumcision - another element keeping various aspects of the Mosaic Law - others keeping the Sabbath - others keeping outdated Jewish traditions.

MonFrere

You cannot prove that a group of Catholics sat around a table and came up with what you cited above; the discovery of what was already there is different than adding traditions/rituals that contradict the word of God…perhaps you agree to at least that much.

The sabbath was made exclusively for the Jewish theocracy; just as tithing was; you lack understanding about the purpose of the sabbath. The book of Acts makes it very clear that the Chruch met on the first day of the week, which would be Sunday, no one has to go to Revelation to figure that one out. Are you just making things up as you go or what?

 

[MonFrere]

You cannot prove that a group of Catholics sat around a table and came up with what you cited above; the discovery of what was already there is different than adding traditions/rituals that contradict the word of God…perhaps you agree to at least that much.

Timothy,

This group of Catholics gathering “around a table” is called the Council of Nicea and the Council of Chalcedon. And these two councils had to prove what could NOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITH SCRIPTURE ALONE. PERIOD!!

The sabbath was made exclusively for the Jewish theocracy; just as tithing was; you lack understanding about the purpose of the sabbath. The book of Acts makes it very clear that the Chruch met on the first day of the week, which would be Sunday, no one has to go to Revelation to figure that one out. Are you just making things up as you go or what?

Unfortunately, for you these assertions need to be proven FROM SCRIPTURE. Yes, the Church met on the first day of the week BUT BUT BUT this doesn’t meet the qualifications for the authority to revoke worship on the Jewish Sabbath. If it does - it doesn’t take much proving for you to be convinced - at least not near what a historian would require. This requires real honest to goodness GOD GIVEN AUTHORITY. Scripture doesn’t give us a clue as to when this occurred. We just know it did. You are taking the authority of the early Christian Church as binding because it’s not a part of scriptural revelation. To put it bluntly - you keep Sunday because of an authority that cannot be found in Scripture. Actually, there were people during the Nicean Council that were keeping these Jewish Traditions – St. Polycarp wanted Easter to fall on the date of the Jewish Passover and he discussed this with the Bishop of Rome. So, don’t say that Scripture is clear on this matter - when there was discussion still going on 300 years later. You see, things were not so cut and dried as you believe. And because you have not given this much thought or study all you can retort is that I must be making this up. That’s a very cheap shot and one that won’t get you anywhere if you really want to defend your Protestant position.

I recommend you really address the questions given to you in both my recent posts. I gave you good examples that addressed your questions. What are your counter arguments? You’re going to have to do much better than simply slough it off and say that “I’m making this up”.

MonFrere

 

[adriancombe]

.

Can you name one instance when a writer of the NT referred to anything outside of Scripture in reference to faith and the moral law?

That is an entire separate topic - actually, several separate but related topics. There are many such instances - more for you than for me since you (presumably) don’t accept the deuterocanonicals. But let’s start with the “low-hanging fruit”.

John 7:38

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

(There is no Scripture passage stating this).

1 Corinthians 9:10

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

(There is no Scripture passage stating this. It is in the context of the morality of Paul and Barnabas, as Apostles, refraining from working for a living.)

There are lots more but I think you get the idea. If you want to learn more, lay hold of a Nestle Aland Greek English New Testament, and look at the ‘LOCI CITATI VEL ALLEGATI’ toward the back. Start towards the end with Machabaeorum I and work your way through the 100+ verses in question. Make sure to pay special attention to the ‘E SCRIPTORIBUS GRAECIS’ and ‘unde’ at the very end.

 

[ChadS]

Somehow you fail to connect that the Bible is referred to as the “living Word”, which is the very thoughts and words of God. Read John 1:1-2 & Hebrews 4:12 & Matthew 4:4 How did everyting come into being; He spoke it.

These Bible quotes you provided are interesting. First of all the quote from John is clearly about Jesus. If we read that one they way you propose we would have to believe that the Bible became flesh. Additionally the other two you provide say nothing about it or only limit it to the “written” word of God.
Timothy Piper:

I am by no means asking you to believe what I say unless you are willing to read the Scripture for yourself and reach the same conclusion. All I can say is that chapter 11 of Hebrews, caled by some, the heroes of the FAITH chapter because it demonstrates how we are saved now, but also same the same as the OT’er were saved, there has been no change because He does not change.

I see your interpretation of Scriptures is the one true interpretation because it’s all so obvious to you as you have read the Scriptures. As this thread has shown your interpretation is not even accepted by those of us who have indeed read the Scriptures. We have come to different conclusions, the difference is our conclusions are based in the living tradition and magisterium of the Church that Christ founded. Upon what is your interpretation based? Your own self-evident reading?

ChadS

 

[fdesales]

I’m not trying to make a case friend; I only repeat what God has said and warned about. If the warning does not pertain to you, then you need not be concerned; if it does, then you need to take heed.

As I said before, your very own citation of Mark’s Gospel proves you wrong. Jesus is not condemning “extra-biblical” tradition. If He was, He would have condemned much more than that, and He Himself would have been a hypocrite, since He also practiced Jewish religious customs and traditions.

Jesus is condemning a practice that circumvents the commandment of God. Naturally, it is extra-biblical, since an biblical command would not circumvent a commandment of God - unless someone misinterpreted one or the other. Jesus condemns the Pharisees who are hypocrites. Why are they hypocrites? Because they invent things not in Scriptures? Is that what you think??? Hardly. Hypocrisy = teaching one thing and doing another. You cannot possibly connect hypocrisy that Jesus condemns with “inventing extra-biblical traditions”. Jesus is condemning the act of circumventing God’s commands.

Thus, you misappropriate the Word of God to try to make a case for an extra-biblical tradition, which ironically, is an extra-biblical tradition. There is no biblical passage that backs up SOLA Scriptura. Even 2 Timothy does not say that the Bible ALONE is the only thing that perfects the Christian. I have already given you ANOTHER thing that perfects the Christian - the Church leaders and teachers, found at Eph 4:11-13. In addition, Paul tells this same Timothy that the CHURCH is the pillar and FOUNDATION of the Truth, not the Scriptures. Thus, even the Scriptures vouch for the Church…

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What are the two ways Paul taught, by mouth and by epistle. Did Paul have two messages; one by mouth and another by letter? Is it really very complicated? If you or anyone believe Paul or any other writer taught something not written in Scripture that pertains to Christian faith and practice, then provide your divine evidence so we all can learn more revelation from God than what is contained in the Bible.

Where does Paul state that oral tradition is abrogated? Where does Paul state that THIS letter contains the entirety of the “Gospel”, doctrine, liturgy, morals, and practice?

Where do we find the “expiration date” for oral tradition?

You doctrine is based upon a HUGE PRESUMPTION… That ANY writer INTENDED that HIS writings contained ALL that Christians need to know and believe. This points out an ignorance of the POINT of these letters were written in the first place…

The writers of the independent letters of what we NOW call the New Testament did not gather together and plan on writing a catechism or a systematic theological work. Nor does it cover EVERY DAY things that Christians just knew, such as HOW to perform baptism. Letters were generally exhortation in nature - or answering SPECIFIC questions or problems of the specific audience. Thus, we don’t see any writings about Eucharistic abuses to the Thessalonians. NOT because he had already written the Corinthians about it (1 thessalonians was written first!). Also, many communities were UNAWARE of other writings or epistles for quite some time. It was only later communities that COLLECTED these writings and judged them to be God’s Word. They are not self-authenticating, nor were they assimilated en masse to every community when first written.

Thus, knowing WHY Scriptures were written should be a clue to you that THEY ARE NOT INTENDED to be ‘sola’. Nor do THEY claim to be - they state that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible. If the Church is this foundation, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, then the Bible becomes a tool of the CHURCH, not the other way around… Those men mentioned in Eph 4 utilize the Bible to teach, but not from it alone.

Sola Scriptura should be self evident; where else can you find and know divine revelation other than the Bible or creation?

HOW can sola scriptura be self-evident if it is found in not one word of the bible? This is a self-defeating doctrine. IF everything we are to believe as Christians MUST be found in the Bible alone, where does the Bible actually state this CARDINAL rule??? Nowhere.

HOW can sola scriptura be self-evident if the BIBLE ITSELF is not self-evident as the Word of God???

The individual letters of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Revelation, do not CALL themselves “the Word of God”. Thus, without the pillar and foundation of the Truth, how do you even KNOW what is the “Word of God” so as to “know everything Christians should practice and believe”???

Regards

 

[tmac1956]

Question: “What is sola scriptura?”

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture.

Source: GotQuestions.org

Ironically, by quoting 2 Timothy, you’ve just destroyed the Sola Scriptura argument. Let’s look at 2 Timothy 3:16 again:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”

Is it useful? Yes!
Is it God breathed,? Yes!
Is it authoritative? Yes!
Is it the sole authority? No - and 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t say that it is.

It’s very simple:

1. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (as you define it) states that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.
2. Nowhere in Scripture does Scripture say that about itself.
3. Thus, Sola Scriptura is false