Honest Question: How does Sola Scriptura not REQUIRE tradition?

[johnjay01]

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.

 

[CopticChristian]

OK - I’m going to ask my Catholic brothers and sisters to be nice here. I have a number of Protestant FRIENDS and I will have lunch with them from time to time to discuss spiritual things. (That’s been my favorite subject these past 6 months.) Let’s be honest - protestants are certainly given miraculous graces similar to us Catholics.

One thing has been bugging me, however. When I ask my Protestant friends how they decide that any particular book of their Bible is inspired, they look at me like I have grown a third eye or something.

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.

My discussions with my friends go nowhere (I don’t push it since they are already taken aback in the first place). I’m looking for help here - what is the proper question to ask? But, if each individual protestant is not on their own to decide what particular books are inspired - then they must rely on some sort of tradition. Any help is appreciated. Thanks!!

In my opinion the best place to start is to ask a question that you know the answer to. Get Yes answers.

Concerning the Bible, and I know you believe that the Bible is Scripture, agreed? Yes

You believe that the Bible is the word of God, agreed? Yes

Is there any place in the Bible that you can show me that the Bible teaches that Scripture is inspired?

You know where they will go and then you unseat that presumed factual belief by explaing that it can’t be true based on the context of the passage.

This is the only way to address this issue is to refute what you know they believe by asking questions you know the answer to about how they came to believe what they believe.

That is what I do.

 

[johnjay01]

QUOTE=Bernadette173;9121455]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.

*Ok first off… there are a few things to clear up. There was no Roman Catholic Church before the 4th or 5th century at the earliest. As an institution it simply did not exist and as a matter of history came into being as the modern catholic church around the time of Charlemagne. There has always been and always will be a catholic (small c as in universal) church. We ALL share the common catholic/universal church. The “Church” is Christian as in followers of Christ.
There are certain documents and dogma that are necessary to be “Christian” (orthodoxy). As in “Fully God and Fully Man”, ect. Scripture lays out what is necessary for salvation. It is called the “Order of Salvation” The elements are the same for all Christians and the order may be different according to your theological stance. Everyone who falls within that range is a follower of Christ (this is very general we can be specific if necessary).

So for instance, Mormons do not believe in “homoousius” (fully God, fully man the formal dogma in Greek) as defined by the council of Chalcedon. therefore they fall out of the accepted orthodoxy of what it is to be a Christian and are no t a Christian Church. Most reformational Churches are Christian as are most protestant churches. The Roman Catholic church is a Christian Church. Now as for scripture, almost all the church fathers referred to the catholic church (small c) but had nothing in mind like the institutional Roman Catholic church. almost none of the church fathers every thought of anything like a Roman Pontiff. many but not all had a church structure like this in mind Elder, Deacon member, aspirant. Around 110 Ignatius wrote letters on his way to his execution asserting that a new form was needed of Bishop, small house churches led by an deacon/elder then members ect. by the year 250 we had Bishop, elder, deacon, song leader/ reader. most were elected from the members by the members.

So you see there was NO Roman Catholic hierarchy guarding anything or putting together the bible. The Bible or canon grew by consensus not by fiat. The group that you mention that met in the fourth century did not think of themselves as Roman Catholic. If fact the council of Church Bishops at Chalcedon rejected Pope Leo’s offer to take over the church (I think it was section/document 28 of the report). By the way the Church polity of the Roman church is called Monarchism.
one last thing… no body wrote anything during the time of Christ except Jews and a few Romans. The earliest Christian letters are probably around 45 CE. The earliest Christian document currently acknowledged to exist today is the epistles of Clement from around 90 CE. But just so you know The Centre for New Testament Studies (Dallas Theological Seminary) is said to have found a first century coy of the gospel of Mark. If that is true, then it will be the earliest Christian document ever found. We should know in about 6 months or so.

have a God filled Evening,

Jay*

 

[AmbroseSJ]

johnjay01:

Does this bring some clairty to the discussion?

Have a God filled day

Jay

Yes, John, your reply brought an enormous amount of clarity to the discussion!

First of all, I didn’t realize you were arguing in defense of SS because it was your belief. I was under the impression you were arguing the matter dispassionately as a Catholic! Sorry if I offended you in any of my posts. Now I see why they were so disturbing to you.

Secondly, I think you are wrong to say that I misspoke when I said "Their own doctrines are ALL drawn directly from the Bible (unlike Catholics.) They aren’t being disrespectful to explain WHY they disagree with us. "

It is not heretical for a Catholic to say this. If you can find a Catholic (or even a Pope) that can show me where in the Bible it speaks of the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption, or even the Trinity, I would be very surprised!

What a Catholic WILL say, is that all of our doctrines are Scriptural, in the sense that they are alluded to in sometimes oblique ways. But that is not a bad thing! Scripture in the Catholic sense was never written as an instruction manual. Catholics believe the Church is our guide, and the Bible, being a work of the Church, is always consistent with the Church’s teachings.

It is a serious Catholic belief that the Deposit of Faith, which was handed over to the Church by Jesus Christ himself, and then passed on by his chosen 12, was continuously and carefully protected throughout the ages by the Church. None of our doctrines would ever contradict the Bible, (as you would probably grant.) But your difficulty is in the Authority of the Church. If the Church was strictly a man-made entity like a political body, then yes, we would be gravely foolish to trust in man’s ability to stay true to the teachings of the Apostles and Christ. But we believe that the Church is a DIVINE body. One that is really and substantially guided by Jesus Christ Himself. That Jesus Christ watches over the Church in the same way the He, from the mount, watched over the Apostles when they were rowing against the storm on the Lake. Jesus walked on water to comfort the Apostles, and calm the storm. That is why Catholics can have so much trust in the Church.

My view is that a Protestant that takes Sola Scriptura as a test of Tradition, is far closer to Catholicism than a hard core fundamentalist evangelical, who views all doctrines as being literally explicit in Scripture. I believe that to be unreal. Yet there is a strong movement in that direction I think.

 

[GaryTaylor]

*Ok first off… there are a few things to clear up. There was no Roman Catholic Church before the 4th or 5th century at the earliest.

Around 110 Ignatius wrote letters on his way to his execution asserting that a new form was needed of Bishop, small house churches led by an deacon/elder then members ect. by the year 250 we had Bishop, elder, deacon, song leader/ reader. most were elected from the members by the members.
Jay*

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

And all the ECFs concur with St Cyprian would you like see another 40 or 50 or so predating you false dating here?

So your 4th-5th incorrect theory is false.

The letters of St Ignatius of Antioch “the third 'Bishop; of Antioch” clearly state Catholic Church. And describe the heirarchy of the church. In fact show me one by “any” ECF which contridicts the example by St Cyprian as I posted. It doesn’t exist they all confirm his thinking here, and I have loads of them on file. Being he was the Third “Bishop” of Antioch this also makes you above claim “false”.

“Ignatius of Antioch (Greek: Ἰγνάτιος, also known as Theophorus from Greek Θεοφόρος “God-bearer”) (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117)[1] was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle.[2][3] En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of very early Christian theology. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops.” Wiki-Pedia

Just a fast google to indicate what I am saying to you about being incorrect.

In fact post links and sources to coincide with your theological claims.

Thanks

 

[FriarDon]

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.

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

However, most non-Catholic Christians I talk to, and I talk to a lot, including many Ministers of Protestant faiths, feel that SS is translated as ONLY from the Bible, and no tradition is acceptable. (Even though each Protestant Church rides on much tradition, they disclaim any such.)

Yes, the Lutheran Church does support Luther’s concept, but the rest of the Protestant faiths do not appear to.

Friar Don, OBR

 

[Cinette]

I am sorry but that reply was not to the point and was more a political polemic than a response. Protestants study the Bible for their take on theology and their interpretation of what is “Scriptural/dogmatic”. “Scripture Alone” was their response to what they viewed as an institutional (meaning political) response to what scripture said. As I am sure we all know that there was great misuse during the dark/middle ages of the institution of the church. Protestants wanting to please God and not man tried to find something that gave them firm ground to argue against what they viewed as wrong.

2Tim 3:16 is a strong argument for scripture being infallible:
(here are a number of translation so that you can view all the possibilities and in Latin and Greek for those that can read it. The numbers respond to a Strong Numbers a Greek exegetic.

(ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(ESV) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(GNT-BYZ+) πασαG3956 A-NSF γραφηG1124 N-NSF θεοπνευστοςG2315 A-NSF καιG2532 CONJ ωφελιμοςG5624 A-NSM προςG4314 PREP διδασκαλιανG1319 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP ελεγχονG1650 N-ASM προςG4314 PREP επανορθωσινG1882 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP παιδειανG3809 N-ASF τηνG3588 T-ASF ενG1722 PREP δικαιοσυνηG1343 N-DSF

(GNT-TR+) πασαG3956 A-NSF γραφηG1124 N-NSF θεοπνευστοςG2315 A-NSF καιG2532 CONJ ωφελιμοςG5624 A-NSM προςG4314 PREP διδασκαλιανG1319 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP ελεγχονG1650 N-ASM προςG4314 PREP επανορθωσινG1882 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP παιδειανG3809 N-ASF τηνG3588 T-ASF ενG1722 PREP δικαιοσυνηG1343 N-DSF

(ISV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(Murdock) All scripture that was written by the Spirit, is profitable for instruction, and for confutation, and for correction, and for erudition in righteousness;

(NASB+) R1AllG3956 ScriptureG1124 is N1inspiredG2315 by GodG2315 and profitableG5624 for teachingG1319, for reproofG1649a, for correctionG1882, for N2trainingG3809 in righteousnessG1343;

(NET.) Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(NIV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

(Vulgate) omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia

There are other arguments but this is possibly the strongest from their point of view.

Now to the rest of your questions. Protestants have tradition same as the Roman Church. The difference is the importance or weight - theologians would argue the positional relation of tradition. Let me explain it this way. To the protestant theologian scripture is the only INFALLIBLE source. So in matters of conflict in scripture you must use scripture to interpret scripture. That is your explanation in matters of dogma should not contradict scripture in any way. Tradition therefore is subject or submissive to scripture.
The Roman tradition is seen as ON PAR with scripture - that is the interpretations of those in authority are said to be so closely guided by the Holy Spirit that they cannot make a mistake in matters of Faith and Morals.
The conflict arises then, when are they speaking in Faith and morals, and when they are not. Some, like Francis of Assisi and others would argue, that to often the Church has intermingled the political with the theological. Or to put it another way often those in authority are seen as following mammon rather than Christ.
Now let me be clear, I am not saying that this is the case all or even most of the time but it has happened enough to damage the credibility of the Church in the eyes of some.

Have a God Filled day…I hope this answers your question.

Jay

*Tradition with a capital T is the Oral teachings handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and which was used during the first centuries. The scriptures emanated from Oral Tradition but is not the whole of the teaching which remained with the Church in the form of liturgy, prayers, practices, form of worship etc. Doctrine was developed over the years by the scholars of the Church - the Magisterium. Christ gave the Apostles “the deposit of faith” and they passed on the faith to holy men and scholars inspired by the Holy Spirit.

“So then brethren, hold on to the traditions you have been taught, either byword of mouth or what is written.”

*

 

[Lincoln7]

*Tradition with a capital T is the Oral teachings handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and which was used during the first centuries. The scriptures emanated from Oral Tradition but is not the whole of the teaching which remained with the Church in the form of liturgy, prayers, practices, form of worship etc. Doctrine was developed over the years by the scholars of the Church - the Magisterium. Christ gave the Apostles “the deposit of faith” and they passed on the faith to holy men and scholars inspired by the Holy Spirit.

“So then brethren, hold on to the traditions you have been taught, either byword of mouth or what is written.”

*

Hi Cinette, forgive me if this has been asked before, I’ve not kept fully up to date on this thread…

Can any of these capital T Traditions be named? The Canon seems to be the only one I get told, and from my perspective and reading, I see no need for an infallible church to ensure the correct books are recognised as canonical. Considering said Church made no infallible pronouncement until The Council of Trent…

You name liturgies, prayers, practices etc… But have these not been changed since? A great many practices of the early church I can think of are no longer prescribed by the Catholic Church, the didache on fasting on Wednesday and Friday for example. (1) If it can be changed or abandoned, it can’t be one of these Capital T traditions surely?

Concerning Doctrinal development; can something be ‘developed’ to such an extent that it no longer has any resemblance to an original model? What are we to test it against? I say scripture alone. The Lord has all authority, which is exercised through scripture, that which is God-Breathed. I can’t accept The Church being right on an issue of doctrinal development because the Church says its right. Especially when said ‘developments’ such as papal infallibility seem to have no support in the early church from my perspective…

The verse in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ‘So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.’

Where does this verse indicate that the oral traditions and the written ones have a different content? Paul states to hold his teaching, that came by word of mouth or letter, but gives no indication that the tradition passed on by word of mouth was different to that which came by letter. (2)

Furthermore, do not several bodies claim to posess this capital T tradition? Which is correct?

Finally, I do have traditions in my church, I also enjoy the fathers of the church. The difference is that I see all of them must be tested to scripture. I do not throw out tradition, for a lot of what has been said in history is wonderful, beneficial and helpful. But are still, to be tested to scripture.

Respectfully, peace.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Lincoln7:

Concerning Doctrinal development; can something be ‘developed’ to such an extent that it no longer has any resemblance to an original model? What are we to test it against?

If you want a real test for true doctrinal development (as opposed to corruption) then you should go to the source. The book that first defined and explained how doctrinal development could be distinguished from doctrinal corruption. You might already know, I am referring to John Henry Newman’s book The Development of Doctrine 1845. Just as Charles Darwin was describing the evolution (development) of species, so John Henry Newman was delving into the Development of Doctrine.

I guarantee, you won’t be left without answers.

 

[Lincoln7]

If you want a real test for true doctrinal development (as opposed to corruption) then you should go to the source. The book that first defined and explained how doctrinal development could be distinguished from doctrinal corruption. You might already know, I am referring to John Henry Newman’s book The Development of Doctrine 1845. Just as Charles Darwin was describing the evolution (development) of species, so John Henry Newman was delving into the Development of Doctrine.

I guarantee, you won’t be left without answers.

AmbroseSJ,

Thanks for the recommendation. It’s on my reading list. I almost got round to Apologia Pro Vita Sua a few months back… Maybe even a year back, but bought the Pope’s ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ part 1 instead. I think I’ve read it a while back briefly, not too sure though…

The issue with Doctrinal Development however, to quote Dr.White in a debate from years back he’s made available is that it is almost an ‘abandonment of the battle in historical studies’ or something to that effect… I can’t remember it or it’s source, I acknowledge him here though, as I can’t give a proper reference…

For example to quote Vatican 1 Session 4, 18 July 1870, speaking of papal infallibility: “This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.”(1) The passage here clearly advocating a view that the same thing they are pronouncing has been believed in the same way since the very beginning… I find it a bit of a leap to say ‘Peter is first amongst equals’ to then advocating papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction… That’s my issue with the basic idea, there is development and there is change. Even Cardinal Newman, the advocate of development, was initially opposed to the idea of papal infallibility(2). It seems development in the sense of the linked essay is more a way of justifying things new…

This is why I find it a tad of a stretch when Cardinal Newman gives the famous ‘to be deep in history…’ remark. The Reformers were content to let the fathers be themselves, use them, and go back to scripture.

Anyways, enough of me…

Respectfully, thanks for the recommendation again

Lincs

(1) - papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
(2) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman

 

[mrsdizzyd]

However, most non-Catholic Christians I talk to, and I talk to a lot, including many Ministers of Protestant faiths, feel that SS is translated as ONLY from the Bible, and no tradition is acceptable. (Even though each Protestant Church rides on much tradition, they disclaim any such.)

Yes, the Lutheran Church does support Luther’s concept, but the rest of the Protestant faiths do not appear to.

Friar Don, OBR

Friar Don,

I’d venture to say that either they misunderstood your questions or you misunderstand their answers or they have been mislead.

I am Baptist. I have been all my life. I also went to a catholic school for elementary education and sat through catechism class with my catholic classmates. So, I am familiar with both belief systems.

It is incorrect for any protestant to say that ALL tradition is unacceptable. The only traditions that are unacceptable are those that contradict scripture. This is the protestant point of view.

Dede

 

[CopticChristian]

Friar Don,

I’d venture to say that either they misunderstood your questions or you misunderstand their answers or they have been mislead.

I am Baptist. I have been all my life. I also went to a catholic school for elementary education and sat through catechism class with my catholic classmates. So, I am familiar with both belief systems.

It is incorrect for any protestant to say that ALL tradition is unacceptable. The only traditions that are unacceptable are those that contradict scripture. This is the protestant point of view.

Dede

Dede,

I muse when I see Protestants of varying stripes entertain the notion that they have familiarity with Catholic thought as you call it a system. Nicea posted early on the following.

Actually it is very simple: Sola Scriptura is late tradition invented way after Christ founded His Church. Sola Scriptura has no Apostolic origins and history has shown it over and over and over. Ask your friends where does scripture explicitly teach SS? Chapter and verse. And tell them to forget 2 Tim 3:16 because Paul did not the verse in support or defense of SS.

In consideration of your former posting about the “reformers” I believe many would agree that in reality they were “deformers” where does the bible teach what you believe that Scripture is inspired in particular the New Testament in toto?.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Dede,

I muse when I see Protestants of varying stripes entertain the notion that they have familiarity with Catholic thought as you call it a system. Nicea posted early on the following.

In consideration of your former posting about the “reformers” I believe many would agree that in reality they were “deformers” where does the bible teach what you believe that Scripture is inspired in particular the New Testament in toto?.

The Dominican Sisters instructed me as they did all members of my school be they Catholic or otherwise. To this day I still read some Catholic texts and hear mass every now and again. I don’t have to “entertain the notion”. It saddens we that you would take such a condescending tone with me. This is not the way I’d expect to be received by a fellow believer in Jesus Christ.

You are coming from a misunderstanding of Protestant belief as is the case for many Catholics. That is your prerogative, but your misunderstanding does not change what we, as Protestants actually believe.

If scripture is the inspired word of God then anything that contradicts the scriptures contradicts God. It is very simple. This does not mean that all tradition is wrong. It is ONLY those that contradict scripture that are wrong.

The Protestant Reformation was the result of certain abuses within the church that the reformers believed were in conflict with scripture. It was never the intention of Luther to deny everything that is Catholic. To say so is to totally misrepresent the motives of the protestant reformers.

In all of this, it is important for our catholic brothers and sisters to remember that we Protestants come out of the Catholic tradition. There are many things we do and many things we believe that can be traced to this heritage. We do not disavow them all. I have always found it difficult to understand why so many Catholics believe we do.

 

[Lincoln7]

Dede,

I muse when I see Protestants of varying stripes entertain the notion that they have familiarity with Catholic thought as you call it a system. Nicea posted early on the following.

In consideration of your former posting about the “reformers” I believe many would agree that in reality they were “deformers” where does the bible teach what you believe that Scripture is inspired in particular the New Testament in toto?.

CopticChristian, greetings.

I’m assuming this question is essentially; ‘where does the bible teach sola scriptura?’ or possibly ‘where does the bible say which books are inspired?’

I think you mean the latter, forgive me if I’m incorrect

Paul testifies that scripture is ‘God breathed’ in 2 Timothy 3:16. ‘theopneustos’. A unique word in the New Testament. It is clear that even from an early date, the first century in fact, the New Testament writings were already viewed as inspired scripture. Peters reference in 2 Peter 3:16: “…as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” ESV. Here there is clear acknowledgement of Paul as writing scripture.

Furthermore in 1 Timothy 5:18 we read: "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” ESV. Here a direct quotation is made to Luke 10:7 (1). Thus scripture testifies in numerous passages that in the first century there was recognition of inspiration of books and letters.

Continuing, it is now considered by the majority of scholarship that the Apostles knew they were indeed writing scripture (2). That these scriptures would testify to the terms of the new covenenant (3). With this established, it is therefore pure myth that the early church had little idea of what was scripture, and untrue that the apostles had no knowledge of what they were writing.
Respectfully. Peace.

Lincs.

(1) - blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=1210
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 106
(3) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 101

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette, forgive me if this has been asked before, I’ve not kept fully up to date on this thread…

Can any of these capital T Traditions be named? *I did name some - one can also look at the Creeds - the Appostles Creed, The Nicea Creed, The Canon of the Mass, and so on… *The Canon seems to be the only one I get told,The canon of scripture is “Written Tradition” which emanated from “Oral Tradition” and from my perspective and reading, I see no need for an infallible church to ensure the correct books are recognised as canonical.Hmmm… well if you do not see the reason why Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth… Considering said Church made no infallible pronouncement until The Council of Trent… This is certainly not true - there were the different Councils… I suggest you do some further reading.

You name liturgies, prayers, practices etc… But have these not been changed since?Do not confuse Traditions and traditions with small t A great many practices of the early church I can think of are no longer prescribed by the Catholic Church, the didache on fasting on Wednesday and Friday for example.traditions can be changed not Traditions (1) If it can be changed or abandoned, it can’t be one of these Capital T traditions surely?*
that is correct*

Concerning Doctrinal development; can something be ‘developed’ to such an extent that it no longer has any resemblance to an original model?There is the example of the Trinity - do you think the Apostles taught this Doctrine? No - it was developed with time. What are we to test it against? I say scripture alone.My Bible says “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” Bible Alone was an invention of the 15th century Reformers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the sole Authority The Lord has all authority, which is exercised through scripture, that which is God-Breathed. I can’t accept "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding"(Prov 3:5-6)The Church being right on an issue of doctrinal development because the Church says its right. Especially when said ‘developments’ such as papal infallibility seem to have no support in the early church from my perspective… Keep searching…

The verse in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ‘So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.’

Where does this verse indicate that the oral traditions and the written ones have a different content? Paul states to hold his teaching, that came by word of mouth or letter, but gives no indication that the tradition passed on by word of mouth was different to that which came by letter. (2) It is implicit. The Catholic Church was preaching the good news of salvation for about 3 centuries before it discerned from among the many manuscripts in circulation which ones were truly inspired and were to become part of what we call the New Testament. Very few people could read at that time so the Bible was not of much use to believers

Furthermore, do not several bodies claim to posess this capital T tradition?apart from the Orthodox and Catholics who else? Which is correct?

Finally, I do have traditions in my church, I also enjoy the fathers of the church. The difference is that I see all of them must be tested to scripture. I do not throw out tradition, for a lot of what has been said in history is wonderful, beneficial and helpful. But are still, to be tested to scripture.*do get the book by Newman which Ambrose recommended.

God bless
Cinette*

Respectfully, peace.

 

[onemangang]

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.

I agree with most of this. I too, feel it is important to properly define Sola Scriptura! The problem many of us Catholics face is that, many Protestants (mostly non-denominational evangelicals) do not define Sola Scriptura as Lutherans do. Many will say the bible only, and not look at anything outside of the bible when interpreting scripture “so they say”

I think, it is important to make the Solo Biblia Christians aware of what Sola Scriptura is!

In the proper context of Sola Scriptura, it could be viewed as a hermeneutic principle, but many of our separated brethren, do NOT hold to Sola Scriptura, but a caricature of it.

The caricature that they do hold of Sola Scriptura (Solo Biblia) is in fact a tradition.

Since Christianity is a revealed religion, it is important to question by what medium is Christ revealed? The Bible only? I don’t think so, one can not separate Christianity from Sacred Tradition, just as Sacred Tradition can not be separated from Scripture.

My two cents anyways!

Peace and love in Christ!

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Cinette, thanks for the discussion.

Regarding the creeds: I wholly accept them, because they are a faithful witness to what Scripture says. Everything they say is based upon what is contained in sacred scripture. I’m looking for these ‘unwritten traditions’ that Trent talked about… Aka: ones which we won’t find recorded in scripture, which we can trace back the first century…

Hmmm… well if you do not see the reason why Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth…

This is certainly not true - there were the different Councils… I suggest you do some further reading.

There is no infallible pronouncement until Trent. Prior to this we see local councils such as Hippo or Carthage making pronouncements, but these councils are not considered infallible by the Catholic Church… Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas etc… We’re all these men in doubt over if they had the correct books, because the Church had made no infallible decision? No.

Do not confuse Traditions and traditions with small t

You listed these as being capital T traditions in your previous post. Again, are there any unwritten Traditions (capital T) which can’t be found in sacred scripture?

There is the example of the Trinity - do you think the Apostles taught this Doctrine?

Yes. The number of scriptural passages which discuss and demonstrate it is collosal.

My Bible says “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” Bible Alone was an invention of the 15th century Reformers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the sole Authority

The Church proclaims Christ, Paul’s description is wonderful, and based upon this. It upholds the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Barnes describes in his commentary on this passage here: bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm

Bible Alone was an invention of the 15th century Reformers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the sole Authority

It is inspired scripture, that which is God-Breathed. It testifies of him who holds all authority in heaven and on earth. It takes priority above any human institution or words. However by claiming to be the sole decider of what is scripture and Apostolic tradition, and claiming to be the sole interpreter of scripture and tradition, Rome sets herself as above both of them. (1) The resultant position is Sola Eclessia. I mean this as no insult, merely a descriptive term

It is implicit. The Catholic Church was preaching the good news of salvation for about 3 centuries before it discerned from among the many manuscripts in circulation which ones were truly inspired and were to become part of what we call the New Testament. Very few people could read at that time so the Bible was not of much use to believers

Source for this? I think that history utterly refutes this idea… I’ve posted a response very similar in another thread: The Apostles knew they were writing scripture(2), the people of the new covenant expected terms that testified to this new covenenant, which were in the form of scripture. (3) Peter calls Paul’s letters ‘scripture’ in 2 Peter 3:16. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 2 Timothy 3:16… There is recognition of a canon displayed in the new testament itself. In the first century, people knew on the whole what was and was not scripture…

Thanks for the discussion Cinette

Peace.

Lincs.

(1) - Dr James White, closing statement of debate vs Fr. Mitch Pacwa, ‘Sola Scriptura’, 1999, San Diego CA
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 106
(3) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 101

 

[CopticChristian]

I am sorry but that reply was not to the point and was more a political polemic than a response. Protestants study the Bible for their take on theology and their interpretation of what is “Scriptural/dogmatic”. “Scripture Alone” was their response to what they viewed as an institutional (meaning political) response to what scripture said. As I am sure we all know that there was great misuse during the dark/middle ages of the institution of the church. Protestants wanting to please God and not man tried to find something that gave them firm ground to argue against what they viewed as wrong.

2Tim 3:16 is a strong argument for scripture being infallible:
(here are a number of translation so that you can view all the possibilities and in Latin and Greek for those that can read it. The numbers respond to a Strong Numbers a Greek exegetic.

(ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(ESV) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(GNT-BYZ+) πασαG3956 A-NSF γραφηG1124 N-NSF θεοπνευστοςG2315 A-NSF καιG2532 CONJ ωφελιμοςG5624 A-NSM προςG4314 PREP διδασκαλιανG1319 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP ελεγχονG1650 N-ASM προςG4314 PREP επανορθωσινG1882 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP παιδειανG3809 N-ASF τηνG3588 T-ASF ενG1722 PREP δικαιοσυνηG1343 N-DSF

(GNT-TR+) πασαG3956 A-NSF γραφηG1124 N-NSF θεοπνευστοςG2315 A-NSF καιG2532 CONJ ωφελιμοςG5624 A-NSM προςG4314 PREP διδασκαλιανG1319 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP ελεγχονG1650 N-ASM προςG4314 PREP επανορθωσινG1882 N-ASF προςG4314 PREP παιδειανG3809 N-ASF τηνG3588 T-ASF ενG1722 PREP δικαιοσυνηG1343 N-DSF

(ISV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(Murdock) All scripture that was written by the Spirit, is profitable for instruction, and for confutation, and for correction, and for erudition in righteousness;

(NASB+) R1AllG3956 ScriptureG1124 is N1inspiredG2315 by GodG2315 and profitableG5624 for teachingG1319, for reproofG1649a, for correctionG1882, for N2trainingG3809 in righteousnessG1343;

(NET.) Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(NIV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

(Vulgate) omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia

There are other arguments but this is possibly the strongest from their point of view.

Now to the rest of your questions. Protestants have tradition same as the Roman Church. The difference is the importance or weight - theologians would argue the positional relation of tradition. Let me explain it this way. To the protestant theologian scripture is the only INFALLIBLE source. So in matters of conflict in scripture you must use scripture to interpret scripture. That is your explanation in matters of dogma should not contradict scripture in any way. Tradition therefore is subject or submissive to scripture.
The Roman tradition is seen as ON PAR with scripture - that is the interpretations of those in authority are said to be so closely guided by the Holy Spirit that they cannot make a mistake in matters of Faith and Morals.
The conflict arises then, when are they speaking in Faith and morals, and when they are not. Some, like Francis of Assisi and others would argue, that to often the Church has intermingled the political with the theological. Or to put it another way often those in authority are seen as following mammon rather than Christ.
Now let me be clear, I am not saying that this is the case all or even most of the time but it has happened enough to damage the credibility of the Church in the eyes of some.

Have a God Filled day…I hope this answers your question.

Jay

Jay,

If you truly believe that this is the strongest then take all your translations and translate the entire thought.

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This passage is in reference to the Old Testament and not the New Testament. It is also relevant to point out it does not anywhere state that only Scripture is profitable and that the Scripture that is profitable does not equate to all that is necessary.

This in fact is the weakest argument. You should know that and understand that the arguments for Sola Scriptura are in fact weak and almost non-existent.

 

[CopticChristian]

On re-reading the thread it seems that I had over looked a part of the topic.
“How was Scripture selected?” or made authoritarian? Well that is a long history… but to start lets go with the simplest answer.
The earliest Christian documents are currently from about CE 90 to 105 and are the epistles of clement. There is talk that a first century copy of Mark is now being studied but that has not been publicly confirmed yet. There are about 5500 fragments of the New Testament from the first 200 years of the history of the universal Church. Enough so that almost all the books of the New Testament are represented in their entirety including extra-biblical statements of Jesus known as Agraphia. The earliest list of the books of the N.T. is know as the Muratorian Canon (found by 8th century Cardinal L.A. Muratori) from about 190 CE. But the New Testament as we know with the exception of a couple of books has been around from the beginning say 110 CE onward. The Last to be accepted generally was Revelations, James, Hebrews but all were considered “Apostolic” very early and finally confirmed as the “measure” (that’s what canon means) of Faith by (I am not absolutely positive about which council) **the council of Nicea in 325 CE to my best recollection. The next time Scripture was added to was the council of Trent in 1546 when the Catholic Apocrypha was added. **There you have it in a very shallow nut shell… hope this helps…

Have a God filled Day,

Jay

Jay,

Do you actually believe that the Deuterocanonicals were added and not confirmed. You give way to the notion that your Catholicity is in question as in my experience Catholics East and West refer to the deuterocanonicals as such and it those that do not understand them refer to them as Apocrypha. This notion of yours does not include the Council of Hippo

This is from the website the codex sinaticus

the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision in this matter.
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)–and thus considering them inspired–for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
One of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or “the Bible alone”) in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

codexsinaiticus.org/en/

 

[CopticChristian]

On re-reading the thread it seems that I had over looked a part of the topic.
“How was Scripture selected?” or made authoritarian? Well that is a long history… but to start lets go with the simplest answer.
The earliest Christian documents are currently from about CE 90 to 105 and are the epistles of clement. There is talk that a first century copy of Mark is now being studied but that has not been publicly confirmed yet. There are about 5500 fragments of the New Testament from the first 200 years of the history of the universal Church. Enough so that almost all the books of the New Testament are represented in their entirety including extra-biblical statements of Jesus known as Agraphia. The earliest list of the books of the N.T. is know as the Muratorian Canon (found by 8th century Cardinal L.A. Muratori) from about 190 CE. But the New Testament as we know with the exception of a couple of books has been around from the beginning say 110 CE onward. The Last to be accepted generally was Revelations, James, Hebrews but all were considered “Apostolic” very early and finally confirmed as the “measure” (that’s what canon means) of Faith by (I am not absolutely positive about which council) the council of Nicea in 325 CE to my best recollection. The next time Scripture was added to was the council of Trent in 1546 when the Catholic Apocrypha was added.
There you have it in a very shallow nut shell… hope this helps…

Have a God filled Day,

Jay

Council of Rome 382

The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus
one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one
book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four
books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books,
Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book,
likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book.
Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,
with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel
one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one
book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias
one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book.
Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book,
Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two
books.
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament,
which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according
to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke
one book, according to John one book.
The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans
one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians
two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one,
to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.
Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles
one book.
Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle
two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one
epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot,
the Apostle one epistle, see n. 162 ff.1