If ,as Sola scriptura claims.

[Sulla]

re posted to correcting a mis wording

Step 1
Are we in agreement that tradition or (Sacred Tradition) should never contradict Sacred Scripture?
I know we will disagree on whether it there has been contradictions; but can we agree that Tradition should never contradict Scripture?

Yes

Step2
Now the following scenario:

An UN-Churched crack addict checks into a hotel and finds a Bible in the drawer and starts reading it.

If he dies the next day from heart damage, was there sufficient information on Salvation in the Bible alone for him to get to heaven?

I can only reduce my answer to two: yes and no.

I say yes because God saves those whom he wishes; indeed He saved the thief without an encounter with anything written at all. Indeed, the Gospel of St, John provides sufficient information for someone to “believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.”

So, to the extent that the Bible would be sufficient – lots of stuff would be sufficient.

I say no because the ordinary method of salvation is through baptism.

Step 3
What part of the below quote do you not agree with?

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

that’s how we get to " to the idea that scripture rules over the church"

There is no authority greater than scirpture

OK, well there you have it. With respect to point 2, I don’t think the Bible alone is ordinarily sufficient for salvation (keeping in mind God saves those whom he pleases). Neither is scripture superior to sacred tradition or the Migisterium, though there is not anything superior to it.

So, if this is your meaning, I guess I disagree with it.

 

[Sulla]

you seem to be confusing solo vs sola sciptura:

PROTESTANT REFORMATION: SOLA SCRIPTURA VERSUS SOLO SCRIPTURA

Sola Scriptura simply means “by Scripture alone”. It is the belief that the Scriptures are completely sufficient for everything that we need for faith, life and godliness.

Solo Scriptura is the perversion of the historic Protestant teaching of “sola scriptura.” The reformers taught that the church is an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, but not an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Solo scriptura is the belief that the church is not an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, or is only authoritative when “I agree with it.”

A. Many people today wrongly think that the Bible is the **only **authority for our faith and life. But this is not what the reformers taught. They **taught that the Bible is the only infallible **rule and authority for faith and life. The reformers never intended for people to reject the authority of the church.
B. Creeds and confessions are one of the ways the church exercises the keys of the kingdom and therefore we are to read the Bible in light of them. The Protestant view of the authority of the church over history is summed up in the Latin phrase, “norma normata” meaning that the church and creeds are a rule (norma) that is ruled (normata) by Scripture.

“Solo scriptura is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a nation with a constitution but no court of law to interpret that constitution. Both can lead to chaos.” (Keith Mathison, “A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura”).

Yes, I have noticed that many Evangelicals (and others) are showing an increasing familiariy with the historical creeds and making arguments based in the early tradition of the Church.

I agree a distinction should be recognized and remembered between sola and sola.

 

[Spun]

Yes, I have noticed that many Evangelicals (and others) are showing an increasing familiariy with the historical creeds and making arguments based in the early tradition of the Church.

I agree a distinction should be recognized and remembered between sola and sola.

This is a valuable point, but I’d add the nuance that some of the Protestant traditions have always understood the Bible to be, in some sense, the church’s book, the church being the only proper context for it’s interpretation.

I am thinking of the Lutherans from whom I spring as well as the Anglicans and Methodists, and even, occasionally, the more confessional Presbyterians.

But this ties into what I am saying, the criticism that Rome brings an external authority to the interpretation of Scripture rings false from people whose ecclesial affiliation does more or less the same thing with varying degrees of attributed authority.

Note: I am not saying that Lutherans (or Anglicans or Methodists or Presbyterians) are the same as Catholics on the subject of the role of Scripture in the life of believers and the church.

 

[schaick]

I see tradtion as bit of a game of telephone.

You know - you start out with a message and pass it around. By the tme it gets to the last person it is a completely different message.

Is there a Bible verse saying anything about **not followng **GOD’s Word as truth? Or that tradition be held higher then GOD’s Word?

**Please - show us the bibligraphy for tradtion not mentioned in the Holy Bible that is needed for salvation. **

Validate Catholic tradition.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

"Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not take pride in one man over against another." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

** A Lutheran perspective…**

1. Truth matters - especially doctrines concerning our souls. Thus, teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as doctrine. We know of no teacher among us that has been exempted from accountability (and that includes The Catholic Church - no less or no more than any other), none that is designated as incapable of error in these matters and just to be accepted in whatever it alone says “with docility.”
2. “Sola Scriptura” is defined as follows: "The praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ norma normans (“norm for norming”) for the evaluation (norming) of teachings (especially doctrines). It is a praxis (practice) regarded as most sound. Of course, it assumes accountability and that truth matters. It is rejected by those that do (RCC, LDS, the cults for example) not because such has an alternative norma normans but because such exempts self alone from accountability and thus norming and any norma normans in such.
3. Sola Scriptura, as a praxis, is not about hermeneutics or arbitration or tradition. It’s about the embraced norma normans in norming. However, Lutherans DO agree that sound hermeneutics is a good thing, that some arbitive process is needed, and that tradition is absolutely essential (although we define the term as Protestants do, and not as The Catholic Church does).
4. Catholics like to (wrongly) stated that Luther invented this praxis, and yet they ignore how Lutherans define it (indeed, essentially the definition of all Protestants). Sola Scriptura does NOT say that Scripture doesn’t need to be taught or sound hermeneutics is moot or everyone should appoint self as the sole and infallible arbiter or interpreter. In fact, some of these are actually views of The Catholic Church that Lutherans disagree with! Sola Scriptura does NOT say that Tradition is to be disregarded in hermeneutics or in arbitration. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOESN’T ‘SAY’ ANYTHING, it’s a praxis. My driving on the right side of the road “says” nothing, it’s just what I DO. Sola Scripture simply is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for norming. It embraces accountability. And it’s accountability we disagree about. Lutherans embrace it, The Catholic Church rejects it (but only in regard to it and it itself alone, exclusively).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Spun]

I see tradtion as bit of a game of telephone.

You know - you start out with a message and pass it around. By the tme it gets to the last person it is a completely different message.

Is there a Bible verse saying anything about **not followng **GOD’s Word as truth? Or that tradition be held higher then GOD’s Word?

**Please - show us the bibligraphy for tradtion not mentioned in the Holy Bible that is needed for salvation. **

Validate Catholic tradition.

The analogy is not all that bad except that you assume that the end product of the game of telephone is an entirely different message.

What we maintain is that the message was spiritual and religious in nature and therefore not subject to the same circumstances which make a game of telephone so fun. The end result may be an evolution of the original message but it never differs substantially from it because the nature of the information is such that the kind of deviation we see in a game of telephone never really takes place.

Also, we maintain that when Christ instituted the Church He gave it certain guarantees, among which the guarantee that when people hear the church, they hear Him is very significant. The point is that Christ made certain promises about the church’s custodianship of His Word, to the effect that, whatever the intervening history, the Holy Spirit is there to ensure the orthodoxy of not only the messenger but the message itself.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I see tradtion as bit of a game of telephone.

You know - you start out with a message and pass it around. By the tme it gets to the last person it is a completely different message.

Is there a Bible verse saying anything about **not followng **GOD’s Word as truth? Or that tradition be held higher then GOD’s Word?

**Please - show us the bibligraphy for tradtion not mentioned in the Holy Bible that is needed for salvation. **

Validate Catholic tradition.

There are several problems with tossing tradition out entirely.

1. Sola Scriptura is certainly not against the Holy Tradition forwarded by the Apostles. It is a confirmation of that Tradition, but is merely to be used as a standard bearer to which Tradition must conform.
2. Tradition has always been a part both of Christianity, and of Judaism. Extensive parts of the Jewish religion have to do with oral traditions that were eventually written down in the Talmud. When you don’t have the scriptures, you go by the praxis you’ve known for centuries.
3. The Bible hasn’t always existed. It was a painstaking process to decide what books were to be canonical or not. This implies that a faith already existed prior to the Bible, which didn’t just miraculously fall down from the sky in full form. The process that was undertaken took into consideration the tradition that was passed down for centuries by that point. Without the traditions we might have ended up considering books like the Apocalypse of Peter as canonical.

 

[Sulla]

This is a valuable point, but I’d add the nuance that some of the Protestant traditions have always understood the Bible to be, in some sense, the church’s book, the church being the only proper context for it’s interpretation.

I am thinking of the Lutherans from whom I spring as well as the Anglicans and Methodists, and even, occasionally, the more confessional Presbyterians.

But this ties into what I am saying, the criticism that Rome brings an external authority to the interpretation of Scripture rings false from people whose ecclesial affiliation does more or less the same thing with varying degrees of attributed authority.

Note: I am not saying that Lutherans (or Anglicans or Methodists or Presbyterians) are the same as Catholics on the subject of the role of Scripture in the life of believers and the church.

I agree. So, if we are all in general agreement that the idea of Solo scripture – this sort of, “Me and my Bible can’t be wrong,” thing – is not at issue, then it does put us in an historically interesting position.

If the first seven councils (or whatever the number is) are accepted as authoritative, and not merely advisory, then we have to wonder whether such a Church is the kind of thing that could lose this authority.

 

[Sulla]

.

** A Lutheran perspective…**

1. Catholics like to (wrongly) stated that Luther invented this praxis, and yet they ignore how Lutherans define it (indeed, essentially the definition of all Protestants). Sola Scriptura does NOT say that Scripture doesn’t need to be taught or sound hermeneutics is moot or everyone should appoint self as the sole and infallible arbiter or interpreter. In fact, some of these are actually views of The Catholic Church that Lutherans disagree with! Sola Scriptura does NOT say that Tradition is to be disregarded in hermeneutics or in arbitration. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOESN’T ‘SAY’ ANYTHING, it’s a praxis. My driving on the right side of the road “says” nothing, it’s just what I DO. Sola Scripture simply is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for norming. It embraces accountability. And it’s accountability we disagree about. Lutherans embrace it, The Catholic Church rejects it (but only in regard to it and it itself alone, exclusively).

Yeah, but look: either the Church as the ability to declare some viewpoint to be heretical or else it does not. If the Church does not really have the ability to say that some position fails to speak the gospel and is counter to the gospel, then is seems to me that we are without any actual way to dispel the individual as sole and final arbiter.

The Gnostics, for example, were stopped by the authoritative claim that they were not speaking the gospel. They weren’t stopped because their hermeneutics were bad. Same thing with the Arians, whose arguments were extensively supported with scripture and were solid enough to convince a great number of sophisticated teachers.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

.

A Lutheran perspective…

1. Truth matters - especially doctrines concerning our souls. Thus, teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as doctrine. We know of no teacher among us that has been exempted from accountability (and that includes The Catholic Church - no less or no more than any other), none that is designated as incapable of error in these matters and just to be accepted in whatever it alone says “with docility.”
2. “Sola Scriptura” is defined as follows: "The praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ norma normans (“norm for norming”) for the evaluation (norming) of teachings (especially doctrines). It is a praxis (practice) regarded as most sound. Of course, it assumes accountability and that truth matters. It is rejected by those that do (RCC, LDS, the cults for example) not because such has an alternative norma normans but because such exempts self alone from accountability and thus norming and any norma normans in such.
3. Sola Scriptura, as a praxis, is not about hermeneutics or arbitration or tradition. It’s about the embraced norma normans in norming. However, Lutherans DO agree that sound hermeneutics is a good thing, that some arbitive process is needed, and that tradition is absolutely essential (although we define the term as Protestants do, and not as The Catholic Church does).
4. Catholics like to (wrongly) stated that Luther invented this praxis, and yet they ignore how Lutherans define it (indeed, essentially the definition of all Protestants). Sola Scriptura does NOT say that Scripture doesn’t need to be taught or sound hermeneutics is moot or everyone should appoint self as the sole and infallible arbiter or interpreter. In fact, some of these are actually views of The Catholic Church that Lutherans disagree with! Sola Scriptura does NOT say that Tradition is to be disregarded in hermeneutics or in arbitration. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOESN’T ‘SAY’ ANYTHING, it’s a praxis. My driving on the right side of the road “says” nothing, it’s just what I DO. Sola Scripture simply is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for norming. It embraces accountability. And it’s accountability we disagree about. Lutherans embrace it, The Catholic Church rejects it (but only in regard to it and it itself alone, exclusively).

I hope that helps.

.

Yeah, but look: either the Church as the ability to declare some viewpoint to be heretical or else it does not. If the Church does not really have the ability to say that some position fails to speak the gospel and is counter to the gospel, then is seems to me that we are without any actual way to dispel the individual as sole and final arbiter.

The Gnostics, for example, were stopped by the authoritative claim that they were not speaking the gospel. They weren’t stopped because their hermeneutics were bad. Same thing with the Arians, whose arguments were extensively supported with scripture and were solid enough to convince a great number of sophisticated teachers.

Perhaps we do; but that means teachers are accountable and you are embracing norming. Welcome to Protestantism.

.

 

[schaick]

There are several problems with tossing tradition out entirely.

1. Sola Scriptura is certainly not against the Holy Tradition forwarded by the Apostles. It is a confirmation of that Tradition, but is merely to be used as a standard bearer to which Tradition must conform.

I am not tossing out traditon completely. There is tradtion that enriches our celebration of faith.

Does the Catholic Church hold traditions that our salvation depends on? What are those traditions?

How do we know that a tradition is in fact from an Apostle?

1. The Bible hasn’t always existed. It was a painstaking process to decide what books were to be canonical or not. This implies that a faith already existed prior to the Bible, which didn’t just miraculously fall down from the sky in full form. The process that was undertaken took into consideration the tradition that was passed down for centuries by that point. Without the traditions we might have ended up considering books like the Apocalypse of Peter as canonical.

Yes, there is much importance of oral traditions in the earliest church. That oral tradition did not have to travel far or for a very long time from Jesus to Disciples and Paul to students and written works. Some of these early people were still alive and could validate the oral tradition.

We see Paul quote scripture in his writtings was it actually written down? Jesus quoted Hebrew scriptures. LOL!! He didn’t need it written down!!

 

[Bill_Pick]

I am not tossing out traditon completely. There is tradtion that enriches our celebration of faith.

Does the Catholic Church hold traditions that our salvation depends on? What are those traditions?

How do we know that a tradition is in fact from an Apostle?

Yes, there is much importance of oral traditions in the earliest church. That oral tradition did not have to travel far or for a very long time from Jesus to Disciples and Paul to students and written works. Some of these early people were still alive and could validate the oral tradition.

We see Paul quote scripture in his writtings was it actually written down? Jesus quoted Hebrew scriptures. LOL!! He didn’t need it written down!!

It is better to give then rec…this is oral tradition from the bible,look it up,its the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[schaick]

It is better to give then rec…this is oral tradition from the bible,look it up,its the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

No, you are not understanding.

Is there a Catholic tradtion that we must follow in order to be saved that is not in the Holy Bible?

For example does our salvation according to the Catholic Church depend on whether we believe that Mary remained perpetually a virgin?

That the Pope is infallible?

If there is no tradition that we must follow that is not based on the Holy Bible then this is a non issue.

 

[Sulla]

No, you are not understanding.

Is there a Catholic tradtion that we must follow in order to be saved that is not in the Holy Bible?

For example does our salvation according to the Catholic Church depend on whether we believe that Mary remained perpetually a virgin?

That the Pope is infallible?

If there is no tradition that we must follow that is not based on the Holy Bible then this is a non issue.

Try, “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.”

 

[Bill_Pick]

It is better to give then rec…this is oral tradition from the bible,look it up,its the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Read LK 10;16,Jn10;16

 

[schaick]

Try, “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.”

That is based on Bible Scripture. And all trinitarian Christians believe it.

Sorry I am not making myself clear here.

Take the Catholic tradition of infallablity of the Pope. Do Catholics have to believe it to be saved?

Does the Catholic Church say belief in the Pope’s infallibility is neccessary for our salvation?

If YES. This is not in Scripture so where did that tradition come from? Who was the first to say it?

BUT if the Catholic Church does not include anything based on just tradition in it’s requirements for a person to believe for salvation all this is a non-issue.

LOL!! Just thought of one Catholics say only those that are members of the Catholic Church are saved that is a tradition.

It is not Biblical- we have the requirements for our salvation spelled out for us from Jesus and it says nothing about membership in what today is known as the Roman Catholic Church with Popes, bishops, hierarchy, priests and nuns, the Catholic Church that was trying to have political power over states, etc.

Where did that tradition stem from - only those that are members of the Catholic Church are saved ?

 

[Bill_Pick]

That is based on Bible Scripture. And all trinitarian Christians believe it.

Sorry I am not making myself clear here.

Take the Catholic tradition of infallablity of the Pope. Do Catholics have to believe it to be saved?

Does the Catholic Church say belief in the Pope’s infallibility is neccessary for our salvation?

If YES. This is not in Scripture so where did that tradition come from? Who was the first to say it?

BUT if the Catholic Church does not include anything based on just tradition in it’s requirements for a person to believe for salvation all this is a non-issue.

LOL!! Just thought of one Catholics say only those that are members of the Catholic Church are saved that is a tradition.

It is not Biblical- we have the requirements for our salvation spelled out for us from Jesus and it says nothing about membership in what today is known as the Roman Catholic Church with Popes, bishops, hierarchy, priests and nuns, the Catholic Church that was trying to have political power over states, etc.

Where did that tradition stem from - only those that are members of the Catholic Church are saved ?

Who is it that is telling you only members of the Cathloic Church are saved,thats new to me.

 

[Sulla]

That is based on Bible Scripture. And all trinitarian Christians believe it.

Based on scripture? Sure. But it is properly considered part of the Sacred Tradition, since your cannot find these phrases in scripture. The fact that Christians accept it simply meas that Christians accept this example of the Sacred Tradition – which example is necessary for salvation. In other words, it is exactly what you asked for.

Sorry I am not making myself clear here.

OK

Take the Catholic tradition of infallablity of the Pope. Do Catholics have to believe it to be saved?

As a doctrine of the Church, all Christians must accept the teaching with faith.

Does the Catholic Church say belief in the Pope’s infallibility is neccessary for our salvation?

If YES. This is not in Scripture so where did that tradition come from? Who was the first to say it?

BUT if the Catholic Church does not include anything based on just tradition in it’s requirements for a person to believe for salvation all this is a non-issue.

OK. Well, it’s an issue, then.

LOL!! Just thought of one Catholics say only those that are members of the Catholic Church are saved that is a tradition.

It is not Biblical- we have the requirements for our salvation spelled out for us from Jesus and it says nothing about membership in what today is known as the Roman Catholic Church with Popes, bishops, hierarchy, priests and nuns, the Catholic Church that was trying to have political power over states, etc.

Where did that tradition stem from - only those that are members of the Catholic Church are saved ?

I think you are getting a little off-topic. You wanted an example of a teaching necessary for salvation that is not in the Bible and is in the Sacred Tradition. I gave you one.

 

[schaick]

Who is it that is telling you only members of the Cathloic Church are saved,thats new to me.

I guess Sulla is.

We have this statement:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

Which I think is saying all of us, but then some how it got twisted into:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Which today many Catholics are saying as such.

This is why we need Scripture to be the refence that we always fall back on. GOD’s Word, Truth never changes.

That doesn’t mean we aren’t constantly learning new things from Scripture. I can read a verse many times and then the very next time get a fuller understanding-something that adds fullness to the scripture-something that I had never realized before.