Honest Question: How does Sola Scriptura not REQUIRE tradition?

[Nicea325]

May I also add that they saw contradiction in councils and popes.For example, we would say that the claim of universal jurisdction is contrary to Nicea canon 6. One, I believe, has to look at 1054 to see the questioning of Tradition as a par with scripture.

Jon

Blessings Jon! May the Lord be with you.

Indeed,but it is impossible to even consider it may not had to be “scratched on stone” to make it valid? Perhaps a common belief and practice well known and accepted did not cross of the minds of the early church to even produce a document confirming it as common belief or practice? Consider the U.S. President? Is he not at times considered the most powerful man in U.S. government or is it all an exaggerationof the truth? Or does there exist some truth in the expression?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

in_servitude:

Perhaps my problem is that I look to the Church to decide what should go into the Bible and what should be excluded. But, if I was going to purposefully reject the Church (which I presume the Protestants do), then I figure that I’d be on my own to decide what was inspired. However, my protestant friends do not see it that way at all. They have indicated that such an “absurd” question on my part is an overt insult.

First acknowledging that there is no such thing as a “Protestant” view on sola Scriptura, since there are so many sects and denominations of them, all saying something different. Let’s take the most hard core example: Evangelicals. Especially the ones that are so Sola Scriptura, that they don’t even believe in ANY particular denomination as having the truth, but prefer to get all of their belief systems from the Bible alone, through their own reading and interpretation.

Even in that case, they FAIL to consider that they are not living (or believing) in a vacuum. They have not just stumbled upon a book of golden tablets (like the Mormons) which nobody else EVER commented on, and which they are now, for the first time, applying an interpretation. As silly as that sounds, they take this approach. They categorically deny as vehemently as possible, that they are looking through the lens of ANY MAN-MADE doctrines, which distorts their interpretation of what the Bible says.

They INSIST that the Bible SAYS exactly what their interpretation has placed upon it. It is a type of blindness, that is sad and extremely difficult to counter. If a person really believes that they are capable of completely separating himself from his environment, while at the same time, is not objective enough to understand its impossibility, then I say that person can not be REASONED with, nor separate what is real from what is imaginary.

On the other hand, if you are dealing with a sola Scriptura Protestant who CAN admit that his viewpoint and interpretation is ALREADY determined by the doctrines of his Church, it undermines his sola Scriptura argument and again, he will be forced into tortured logic and reasoning to maintain both beliefs.

 

[johnjay01]

Ambrose, really, take a breadth…

I mean I don’t know if you approach them in the same manner you type and/or assert your prepositional statements but 1> you assume a great deal 2> If you present the hostility or anger you seem to as I read your statement, then I am sure they are afraid to respond to you in any way but defensive. If I am wrong and misreading you, please accept my apology. If I am not wrong then you might first befriend a person of another denomination and see what you can learn from them before you delve into their theology.

Now to your points of view. I am sure that if you have spent any time in the theological circles of Roman Catholicism you will find many different interpretations and hermeneutic not to mention the many different forms of Catholicism. Picking the extremes to argue for the middle is a poor way to do polemics and someone is going to hand you your head for doing it. Argumentatively speaking.
“Scripture Alone” is a practice that the pope as a theologian has written about. He has also done a great discussion on Faith alone as well. I suggest you do a search and look up his comments, they might surprise you.

A couple more points,
When doing a polemic, in theology, by suggesting a generality as an interpretation for a specific without acknowledging your own presuppositions creates a great deal of confusion. For instance, ALL doctrine is “man-made”. After all Jesus was a man. Unless of course you are going to deny His Hypo-static union.
I think you should know this but you seem to be implying otherwise in your argument, ALL scripture is made up of words and they have a limited translation UNLESS you claim to be speaking “Ipsissima Vox” and then assert you have the very voice of the original autograph. If that were true, I doubt you would be wasting time with us. Most protestants translate “Ipsissima Verba” from the “very words” and then seek consensus in the modern idiom.
Lastly, the logical construct of your argument, leaves the other party with no other choice but to accept your total dominance and fling themselves at your feet asking for forgiveness.
No matter what your point of view is on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I am not sure you are authorized in that area.
Please remember they are your brothers and sister, they share the same “imago dei”. If your intention is to save their souls then having such a harsh judgement will be a problem for them and for you.

Have a God filled day
Jay

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you are correct. Here is a reference from F.F. Bruce one of the best exegetical scholars of the modern age:

“One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities” (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. 1960

Hence the books we have as Scripture were inspired by God and recognized such by man.

I apologize for my error…

have a God filled evening…

Jay

Goodness, Jay. No apology needed. I had a feeling you were thinking of Carthage and Hippo. The only issues I have with Carthage and Hippo is they weren’t general councils, but local, and they aren’t recognized as general councils in the East, AFAIK.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;9112234]Blessings Jon! May the Lord be with you.

And also with you, my friend.

Indeed,but it is impossible to even consider it may not had to be “scratched on stone” to make it valid? Perhaps a common belief and practice well known and accepted did not cross of the minds of the early church to even produce a document confirming it as common belief or practice? Consider the U.S. President? Is he not at times considered the most powerful man in U.S. government or is it all an exaggerationof the truth? Or does there exist some truth in the expression?

I understnad your point. Mine is that it seems scratched in stone the other way, that being theidentification of the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction, and that of Alexandria, as being different, yet equal.
Regarding the president, it depends on what you mean. He may be considered the most powerful simply because he is the single leader of the executive branch. But his power is equal to the other two branches. So, it is an exaggeration.

Jon

 

[FriarDon]

Well, Protestants call it the “apocrypha”, and they are talking about the 7 books not in Protestant Bibles. Catholics call those 7 books the Deuterocanonical books. The history here (as I recall from a talk that I heard in the past) is that the Jewish leadership that rejected Jesus had a council about the year 80 and they decided that the Deuterocanonical books were “apocryphal”. From what I understand, we know that the Deuterocannonical books were considered to be a part of Sacred Scripture by the actions of the very early Popes (their writings) and the writings from councils in the 4th century. The council of Trent, as I understand it, was held to confirm a number of beliefs under attack at that time.

In any regard, the point of my post here is to try and reconcile something so that I can build on my discussions with my Protestant friends. It seems like a fatal flaw to me to say, on the one hand, that Sacred Tradition is bogus and that Sacred Scripture is all that matters. But then, when I ask about how scripture is selected from all that is available (INCLUDING even choosing 2 Timothy as sacred) - there is a big block that I do not see around.

I will have lunch today with another of my Protestant friends - I’ll try again and see what I get.

They were rejected in the early 90s by the Rabi because they were not originally written in Hebrew, but Greek. Up until that time, they were part of their Holy Books as well as “Canon” to them.

They were part of the Catholic (early Christian) scrolls and books from the time of Jesus on. He referenced some of them in His talks to the Disciples. They were not taken out of the “Book” until Martin Luther came along.

Friar Don, OBR

 

[JonNC]

They were rejected in the early 90s by the Rabi because they were not originally written in Hebrew, but Greek. Up until that time, they were part of their Holy Books as well as “Canon” to them.

They were part of the Catholic (early Christian) scrolls and books from the time of Jesus on. He referenced some of them in His talks to the Disciples. They were not taken out of the “Book” until Martin Luther came along.

Friar Don, OBR

Friar Don,
There are 74 books in Luther’s translation. They all remian there to this day in Die Bibel.
He he did do was question the canonicty of some of them, something that had been the case since Eusebius and St. Jerome, all the way up to Cardinal Cajetan.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

And also with you, my friend.

I understnad your point. Mine is that it seems scratched in stone the other way, that being theidentification of the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction, and that of Alexandria, as being different, yet equal.
Regarding the president, it depends on what you mean. He may be considered the most powerful simply because he is the single leader of the executive branch. But his power is equal to the other two branches. So, it is an exaggeration.

Jon

But my brother in Christ,as stated before,if it is a contradiction to canon 6,then both sides are guilty of violating it. And why? Because I have stated,grave matters from outside of Rome were taken to the Bishop of Rome to settle them,not just listen to them. If it is merely based on “honor” as many Orthodox and others claim,then why couldn’t the local bishop with the same “equal” jurisdiction settlet it in-house? That is where I find the evidence of first among equals seriously lacking. Furthermore,if the Bishop of Rome had crossed his jurisdiction boudaries,then where are the complaints from other “equal” bishops?

As for the President? I understand the checks & balance system,but remember he is the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s leading military power. Any complaints from Senators or Congressmen? Yes it was set up in such a fashion and only Congress declares war,but nonetheless,I do not hear of any complaints of one man being charge over the entire military. See my point?

Peace and always a pleasure my brother in Christ.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

johnjay01:

A couple more points,
When doing a polemic, in theology, by suggesting a generality as an interpretation for a specific without acknowledging your own presuppositions creates a great deal of confusion.

I believe you have completely misunderstood my intention and my comments. I was responding to the OP with some worst case scenarios to give him my view of what sort of difficulties might be encountered with Sola Scripturists, and how their reasoning was flawed. I assumed the OP would deal with his Protestant friends in a kind and charitable manner.

BTW, man-made doctrines is an Evangelical buzz word for Catholic doctrines (as opposed to what the Bible teaches). Your thorough analysis of what constitutes “man-made” doctrines assured me that you were not getting my drift at all.

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;9115945]But my brother in Christ,as stated before,if it is a contradiction to canon 6,then both sides are guilty of violating it. And why? Because I have stated,grave matters from outside of Rome were taken to the Bishop of Rome to settle them,not just listen to them. If it is merely based on “honor” as many Orthodox and others claim,then why couldn’t the local bishop with the same “equal” jurisdiction settlet it in-house? That is where I find the evidence of first among equals seriously lacking. Furthermore,if the Bishop of Rome had crossed his jurisdiction boudaries,then where are the complaints from other “equal” bishops?

Dear friend,
Grave matters taken to Rome does not equate to universal jurisdiction, and canon 5 says the following;

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. **But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. **

The Metropolitan mentioned is each metropolitan in his own jurisdiction. No mention of Rome having universal jurisdiction in these matters.
I am a teacher, and recently I had a colleague come to me with a student who was not behaving as he should, and not fulfilling his responsibilities as a student. She brought him to me for help. This was not an indication on her part that I now had jurisdiction in her classroom. While I have many more years of experience than her, we are still equals in our status as classroom teacher, even though she came to me with this “grave matter”.
Now, you know I am certainly not comparing the two, but I think the analogy of bringing grave matters is similar.

I would also mention that Christ warned the disciples not to have a pecking order, so to speak. And it is also true that in Acts, it seems Peter is not in charge of the council. All that said, my good friend, I would wish nothing more than for Orthodoxy and Rome to come to an agreement on this issue, as it would makes things clearer for me, a simple Luheran.

Jon

As for the President? I understand the checks & balance system,but remember he is the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s leading military power. Any complaints from Senators or Congressmen? Yes it was set up in such a fashion and only Congress declares war,but nonetheless,I do not hear of any complaints of one man being charge over the entire military. See my point?

Yes, I actually think it is a good analogy. Who, btw, has the power of the purse?

Jon

Peace and always a pleasure my brother in Christ

And Peace also with you. Our virtual friendship, and the way we discuss our differences, is always a blessing for me. Thank you for your charity.

Jon

 

[johnjay01]

I believe you have completely misunderstood my intention and my comments.

I am sorry for the confusion then and stand corrected.

BTW, man-made doctrines is an Evangelical buzz word for Catholic doctrines (as opposed to what the Bible teaches). Your thorough analysis of what constitutes “man-made” doctrines assured me that you were not getting my drift at all.

Wow, I do not know who you are meeting with, but I have never heard that used in reference to Classic Roman Catholic theology. There are disagreements but “man-made doctrine” is not one of them. hmm, maybe someone is using that as slang for the use of “Tradition on par with Scripture”. I have never seen a Evangelical Theologian disrespect in any way Roman Catholic dogma. Argue against it - say that it contradicts either our own history, or scriptural history, or the very words of Scripture - but never disrespect it in any way.

Again Ambrose, I apologize for my confusion regarding your post.

Have a God filled day,

Jay

 

[GaryTaylor]

So then how does SS not require Tradition when scripture itself tells you it requires Tradition? 2-Thessalonians 2:15 Hold Fast to the Traditions you recieved from us [Apostles] by Word or Letter.

Where does the Bible tell you the Bible is all you need to believe? Where in the Bible does it tell you just pray to Jesus and your sins are forgiven?

Perhaps I missed something, since I admit I’m not an expert. And if one on my beloved Christian bretheren could point this out I would be most content.

Seems to me all the Gosples that are in the Protestant and Catholic Bible, plus St Pauls letters relate directly to that last Covenant. This is the Blood of the “New and Everlasting Covenant” shed so sins may be forgiven…“Do This”.

Wait I’m confused DO WHAT? What are we suppose to DO? DO THIS? What is THIS?

Did Jesus say read this? Did Jesus say pray to me and I will forgive your sins? I believe he said “Do This”, as an instruction to eat the body and blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant which St Paul elaborates on as to not receiving in a state of sin. Thus confessing to those called on by the Lord called the Aposles who really continued the idea of Apostolic Succession of the Apostles. Now when one can prove they are in the Apostolic line of Succession, I find that impressive. Course Rome has not this issue.

However as I stated perhaps I am wrong about this conclusion I have reached:shrug:

Jesus Christ gave us Apostles thus ordained Priests “Altus Christus” in return they give us Jesus Christ. Pretty confident is the content/context of the Bible and the Oral…Tradition. Unless one reads out of content/context then is would become, well pretext, no?

Thus regardless of the canons. There is content/context which also relates to a Real Oral and Written Tradition and also corresponds to the OT in Tradition. Is Easter the Passover? I don’t know, all apears to relate OT-NT to me, But as I said, No Expert. I’m inclined to believe also since all the Apostolic Churchs follow the liturgical calender and have since the first century, and being that is documented history also, I would have to say for certain the Tradition St Paul spoke about in scripture actually existed for 2000 years and still does. Thus we get back to another question, how does Sola Scriptura apply at all?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then too I suppose we would have to deduce what Protestant denominations we are referring to? For some have a Tradition and adhere to it and openly admit this:shrug:

Then we have some who Hold the Bible in the air high, and state “This is all you need” Its all in here. Jesus on the Cross, the Sinners Pray, Alter Calls etc. And you are saved. Some believe in solely baptism of the Holy Spirit. So its sounds as if we are alo painting with a broad brush?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Wow, I do not know who you are meeting with, but I have never heard that used in reference to Classic Roman Catholic theology. There are disagreements but “man-made doctrine” is not one of them. hmm, maybe someone is using that as slang for the use of “Tradition on par with Scripture”. I have never seen a Evangelical Theologian disrespect in any way Roman Catholic dogma. Argue against it - say that it contradicts either our own history, or scriptural history, or the very words of Scripture - but never disrespect it in any way.

Again Ambrose, I apologize for my confusion regarding your post.

Have a God filled day,

Jay

I am not talking about theological circles of debate, I am talking about everyday people. As you finally realized, it is a slang, or as I said a buzzword. I hoped that the dichotomy I had drawn between man-made doctrines and what the Bible teaches would help you understand. The OP was dealing with everyday people, friends at lunch, or something like that.

Sola Scriptura as a belief system is concerned with drawing all of its doctrine from the Bible alone. Those that hold this belief reject Catholic doctrine (like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption) as “man-made” doctrines because they are not found explicitly in the Bible.

I don’t know where you are getting the disrespectful angle. The very reason the Evangelical Theologians argue AGAINST Catholic doctrines is because they are “man-made” doctrines. Don’t you get that? Their own doctrines are ALL drawn directly from the Bible (unlike Catholics) They aren’t being disrespectful to explain WHY they disagree with us. Of course, that is why we have to reply in some sense with the reasoning I used in my first post, which at first reading seemed so horrible to you.

To get back to the real question of this thread, the OP wonders HOW Sola Scriptura does NOT require tradition. That question IS THE VERY BASIS of our dispute with them! It is the elephant in the living room. OF COURSE THEY REQUIRE TRADITION. But they deny this! They maintain that they SEE THEIR DOCTRINE in Scripture, without any use or need of any tradition whatsoever. (At least the hardest core ones.) That is why the crux of the whole debate turns on whether they can REALLY see their doctrines or not in Scripture. Whether they are REALLY explicit or not. Whether they REALLY have no antecedent probability to lean one way or another when reading the Bible. Whether they really have no FIRST PRINCIPLES guiding their reading of the Bible. And so on.

There is no need for an apology on your part. If my posts are unclear, it is my duty to try and correct my shortcomings.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think I would call Sola Scriptura a tradition as much as I would call it a hermeneutical principle. And by Sola Scriptura I mean, of course, Luther’s idea of Sola Scriptura, not the base caricature of the idea that is commonly made by Catholics.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I don’t think I would call Sola Scriptura a tradition as much as I would call it a hermeneutical principle. And by Sola Scriptura I mean, of course, Luther’s idea of Sola Scriptura, not the base caricature of the idea that is commonly made by Catholics.

Lutheran theology understands that a tradition is allowable when (a) it is not contradicted by scripture, (b) it serves a purpose that is scriptural, and (c) it is not enforced as a pre-condition for Christian unity.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t think I would call Sola Scriptura a tradition as much as I would call it a hermeneutical principle. And by Sola Scriptura I mean, of course, Luther’s idea of Sola Scriptura, not the base caricature of the idea that is commonly made by Catholics.

A couple of things:

The thread is referring to the fact that Sola Scriptura NEEDS (or doesn’t need) a tradition outside of the Bible. No one is calling Sola Scriptura a tradition.

What are you meaning by “base caricature…made by Catholics” Are you saying that Catholics are misrepresenting sola Scriptura? If so, please explain.

 

[Bernadette173]

One must **not **agree that SS ‘‘the Bible alone’’ theory can be the sole rule of faith. First off,1. Historically the bible is a Catholic book. The NT was written, copied and collected by Catholic Christians during the time of Christ. The canon of the Bible was determined by the CC in the fourth century A.D. It is from the CC that other religions have the Bible at all.

1. Logically To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the CC that guarantees the Bible It is contradictory for Protestants to accept the Bible, yet reject the CC that gave the Bible to them. It goes against the BIBLE Scripture teaches that Christ left the a Church with divine authority to govern in His name.(Mt:16:13-20 18:18; Lk 10:16). Christ said that the CC would last til the end of time.(Mt 16:18,28:19-20;Jn14:16) In 1 Tm 3:15
   reaasures us that the CC is the ‘‘pillar and bulark of the truth.’’ It goes against History It asserts that in the Bible’s history it was the CC, it did and still does exercise its Apostolic Authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. The CC and the living authority that governs what is and is not Scripture is essential to the CC and its followers. It is like having the Constitution without the Supreme Court to govern and interpret the Constitution lest we all interpret laws for ourselves and say, ‘‘The heck with everyone else!! I’ll do whatever I want, when I want to’’ Just to clarify a few misconceptions about SS.

 

[Cavaradossi]

A couple of things:

The thread is referring to the fact that Sola Scriptura NEEDS (or doesn’t need) a tradition outside of the Bible. No one is calling Sola Scriptura a tradition.

What are you meaning by “base caricature…made by Catholics” Are you saying that Catholics are misrepresenting sola Scriptura? If so, please explain.

Classical Sola Scriptura, as put forth by Luther, only states that if tradition contradicts scripture, then the Scriptures take precedence. In other words, Sola Scriptura does not mark a rejection of all traditions, as many Catholics present it, but only a standard for understanding the tradition (that is, it is hermeneutical), and moreover for rejecting parts of the tradition which do not match with Scripture.

This is not to say that I agree with Sola Scriptura (as an Orthodox Christian, I necessarily reject it), but I think it would be nice to see a real debate on Sola Scriptura here rather than the caricatures and mischaracterizations of the teaching that I normally see on CAF.

 

[JonNC]

Classical Sola Scriptura, as put forth by Luther, only states that if tradition contradicts scripture, then the Scriptures take precedence. In other words, Sola Scriptura does not mark a rejection of all traditions, as many Catholics present it, but only a standard for understanding the tradition (that is, it is hermeneutical), and moreover for rejecting parts of the tradition which do not match with Scripture.

This is not to say that I agree with Sola Scriptura (as an Orthodox Christian, I necessarily reject it), but I think it would be nice to see a real debate on Sola Scriptura here rather than the caricatures and mischaracterizations of the teaching that I normally see on CAF.

This is essentially a correct understanding of sola scriptura. The use of scripture as the final norm in hermeunetics, which is practiced by the Church, not by individuals. I often presnt the Formula of Concord rule and norm in these matters.

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

The caricature often presented includes the idea that only scripture can be considered, or that all tradition is rejected, and that it is essentialy individual interpretation. As one can see, all of these are incorrect.
As a Lutheran, when the issue is doctrine, I have no more privilege to interpret scripture than a Catholic, and neither do our pastors.

Even though I know you necessarily reject SS, I appreciate your honest understanding and presentation of it here.

Jon