It's NOT in the Bible

[Luvtosew]

Too many trimmings.

 

[CalCatholic]

Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition that is not found in the Bible, therefore to a good ‘Bible only’ believing Christian it should be considered ‘un-biblical.’

 

[Zundrah]

Too many trimmings.

But these trimmings are of our history. As you said, Jewish history.

 

[SonCatcher]

But that would leave room for error.

That is why it is necessary to have an authoritative interpreter. The Catholic Church (East and West) is the only consistent authority to interpret the scripture she assembled.

 

[TexanKnight]

Here’s a quote that at first lends itself to sola scriptura, though it’s easily dismantled:

2 Timothy 3:16-17. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

On the surface it looks like it says everything useful is in scripture.

A screwdriver is useful for working on a car, but isn’t the only tool you should use. (Unless it’s an old Beetle! LoL)

Actually, that is not what it says. There is no limitation. It simply says all Scripture is good. It never says “and nothing else is”

 

[Zundrah]

That is why it is necessary to have an authoritative interpreter. The Catholic Church (East and West) is the only consistent authority to interpret the scripture she assembled.

Well yes but when some reject that authority we are then back to square one again.

 

[SteveGC]

The Church did exist before the bible was fully written, but the Holy Spirit had a much more active role in those days, as the bible clearly states, to help everyone out. We don’t have the same spiritual gifts in the same quantity as the first century Christians did back then and I feel the reason was because they didn’t have the new testament to rely on.

We know they were temporary gifts.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10

Your Corinthians quote refers to the end of gifts at the end of time, “when the perfect comes”. He is emphasizing that love is the greatest of the virtues of faith, hope and love. In eternity, we will no longer require faith and hope, nor the gifts which are used to strengthen them (like prophesy, tongues, etc). Love will endure throughout eternity, however, and his point is to emphasize love now, in the temporal, above faith and hope.

He is not suggesting that all gifts in the temporal are short-lived in the temporal. There is no biblical support for the notion that the Holy Spirit’s gifts are lesser today than they were in Acts, nor that He was “more active” then. Certainly His actions were pivotal and monumental…as we read about the institution of the Church and the gifts to it’s first leaders. But this does not infer that the Holy Spirit’s gifts then lessened as time went on.

I’m not going to use this post to argue for or against sola scriptura, but to simply say that Church tradition must always be harmonious with the written word. I don’t believe Catholics reject that notion that they should be in agreement. So I do take issue when a tradition is entirely unbiblical. Not to say that it’s outright sinful, but that it has no basis in scriptural authority.

The pharisees has a lot of traditions and rituals they used that weren’t necessarily sinful. Jesus called them on their hypocrisy, not their use of rituals necessarily. But the traditions they used didn’t profit them anything either since it was never mandated. At least that is my understand of the matter.

Although you did not intend to make an argument for or against sola scriptura, this is entirely an argument FOR it.

The Pharisee’s were chastised by Christ not because their tradition did not profit them anything, but because of their misuse and abuse of tradition (and authority). Jesus clearly recognized their authority with Judaism. He Himself followed the traditions of the Old Covenant faith during His lifetime before His final years of ministry. How they practiced their faith was of vital importance, and Christ’s mission was not to abolish it, but to fulfill it. Thus, tradition was still to have a significant role in Christianity, and part of it was to be Sacred Scripture. So, if you’re concerned that what you observe in the Catholic faith as a tradition doesn’t seem to be embodied within your interpretation of scripture, just realize that scripture and tradition go hand in hand, so to understand one, you need the other. Neither are the final authority, but both are authoritative. The final authority rests with Christ, and this authority manifests itself in the form of His appointed (anointed) apostles and their ordained successors, as the Magisterium of His Church on earth.

 

[TexanKnight]

Hey yours are right, I just get hot when I see these posts about how the CC is right about everything and protestants don’t have the full truth. We all know the Church evolved, and well sometimes traditions that can’t be undone are not a good thing. I don’t know who the CC is anymore, its part jew and part christian I guess.

and ALL God and truth…

 

[TexanKnight]

Too many trimmings.

I will let God know you think He does it wrong…

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Do we agree that the Bible is the word of God? I hope the answer is yes. If it is, then, do we agree that any tradition or ritual or action, etc, should not contradict the truths found within God’s word? Again, I hope the answer is yes. That is the meaning of sola scriptura.

It doesn’t have to “say X in the Bible” in order for X necessarily to be OK/true. But if the Bible says Y and Y contradicts X, then X is definitively not OK/true.

For example, the Bible doesn’t say the Nicene Creed should be recited at every Mass. That doesn’t mean that reciting the Nicene Creed is not OK. But if the Bible said, “You shall not recite the Nicene Creed at Mass,” well then, that tradition would be out of line with the authority of the word of God and no authority of “Tradition” or authority of man/Church could make it OK. Agreed?

 

[TexanKnight]

I suppose that, for those who believe in the Biblically unsupported doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that they believe the Apostles who went forth after Christ to all the world to teach the Word of God were all wrong and taught badly since they did not have a Scriptura to teach solo-ly from…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Hey yours are right, I just get hot when I see these posts about how the CC is right about everything and protestants don’t have the full truth. We all know the Church evolved, and well sometimes traditions that can’t be undone are not a good thing. I don’t know who the CC is anymore, its part jew and part christian I guess.

And there we have it - we are all God’s children, and in this day and age, its a miracle anyone remains Christian. And it is just that - a miracle!

We Christians do need to stick together, and be capable of having open dialog about our differences, but should also recognize and rejoice in that which we share.

And if that ain’t Christian “tradition”, I don’t know what is …

May the peace of the Lord be with all of you!

 

[pablope]

I can’t agree more, most of the CC is tradition and man made men’s teaching. So to a Catholic its not just the Bible. But even the CC tries to line their teaching up with a verse or two from the bible , and might I add at their interpretation, so this is a mute thread isn’t it?

And you think the protestant teachings are not traditions of men also? Where do you think protestant teachings came from? They had their roots from Catholic teachings…and are,m one way or another, from the ancient heresies defeated by the ECFs.

You do not realize it, but the protestant teachings you cling to are also based on your pastor’s traditions…you just do not want to admit to that…

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it.

For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Doesn’t this (the blue and bolded) speak of how protestants do it? (Just asking)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Do we agree that the Bible is the word of God? I hope the answer is yes. If it is, then, do we agree that any tradition or ritual or action, etc, should not contradict the truths found within God’s word? Again, I hope the answer is yes. That is the meaning of sola scriptura.

“Yes” and “Yes”, but perhaps we also differ in terms of our understanding and use of the term sola scriptura. Catholics do believe that there are certain Truths and revelations that were not written in Scripture, but nonetheless are supported by Scripture and do not contradict it. That is Sacred Tradition (capitalized) in Catholic terms. I think we tend to differ with other Christian groups most acutely on those beliefs which stem from Sacred Tradition.

 

[CalCatholic]

Do we agree that the Bible is the word of God? I hope the answer is yes. If it is, then, do we agree that any tradition or ritual or action, etc, should not contradict the truths found within God’s word? Again, I hope the answer is yes. That is the meaning of sola scriptura.

It doesn’t have to “say X in the Bible” in order for X necessarily to be OK/true. But if the Bible says Y and Y contradicts X, then X is definitively not OK/true.

For example, the Bible doesn’t say the Nicene Creed should be recited at every Mass. That doesn’t mean that reciting the Nicene Creed is not OK. But if the Bible said, “You shall not recite the Nicene Creed at Mass,” well then, that tradition would be out of line with the authority of the word of God and no authority of “Tradition” or authority of man/Church could make it OK. Agreed?

I agree, but the majority of Evangelical Christians that I have conversed with or have heard on the radio don’t hold this definition of sola scriptura. The number one thing they say when they are confronted with Sacred Tradition is,“Where is that in the Bible?”

 

[pablope]

While I agree with you that the words John wrote about not adding to the book of prophecy did pertain to Revelation itself… I just wanted to point out your statement that I bolded.

He was John, I’m pretty sure he knew about it. Or at least what had been written at the time. Just because the canon was set hundreds of years later doesn’t mean the books weren’t already in circulation prior.

How could they have been circulated? Consider the following facts:

The Roman persecution where Christians were practically in hiding; no printing press, every book had to be hand copied…it was expensive to make paper…mode of travel in those times…not everyone knew how to read and write…and other early writings that did not make it into the Bible?

 

[pablope]

Do we agree that the Bible is the word of God? I hope the answer is yes. If it is, then, do we agree that any tradition or ritual or action, etc, should not contradict the truths found within God’s word? Again, I hope the answer is yes. That is the meaning of sola scriptura.

It doesn’t have to “say X in the Bible” in order for X necessarily to be OK/true. But if the Bible says Y and Y contradicts X, then X is definitively not OK/true.

For example, the Bible doesn’t say the Nicene Creed should be recited at every Mass. That doesn’t mean that reciting the Nicene Creed is not OK. But if the Bible said, “You shall not recite the Nicene Creed at Mass,” well then, that tradition would be out of line with the authority of the word of God and no authority of “Tradition” or authority of man/Church could make it OK. Agreed?

And what will be the basis for what is definitive and not? Who decides?

Will it be like this…For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation. (calledtocommunion.com/200…clesial-deism/)

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

“Yes” and “Yes”, but perhaps we also differ in terms of our understanding and use of the term sola scriptura. Catholics do believe that there are certain Truths and revelations that were not written in Scripture, but nonetheless are supported by Scripture and do not contradict it. That is Sacred Tradition (capitalized) in Catholic terms. I think we tend to differ with other Christian groups most acutely on those beliefs which stem from Sacred Tradition.

The term “sola scriptura” is misunderstood by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. My theory is that it’s the misunderstanding of the intended application of the word “sola”, but that can probably be its own thread.

I would expect that you believe that your Sacred Tradition is supported by Scripture (or at least not contradicting it) otherwise you wouldn’t believe it! I personally just find it silly that people divide over this when, in reality, we should all agree that traditions shouldn’t contradict scripture if we just took the time to calm down and understand each other a bit more.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

I agree, but the majority of Evangelical Christians that I have conversed with or have heard on the radio don’t hold this definition of sola scriptura. The number one thing they say when they are confronted with Sacred Tradition is,“Where is that in the Bible?”

No doubt. There are plenty of non-Catholics who don’t understand the definition either and even selectively apply their own definition.

 

[Nicea325]

The term “sola scriptura” is misunderstood by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. My theory is that it’s the misunderstanding of the intended application of the word “sola”, but that can probably be its own thread.

I would expect that you believe that your Sacred Tradition is supported by Scripture (or at least not contradicting it) otherwise you wouldn’t believe it! I personally just find it silly that people divide over this when, in reality, we should all agree that traditions shouldn’t contradict scripture if we just took the time to calm down and understand each other a bit more.

Why is it misunderstood? It is very clear what it means: Sola = Only…Scriptura = Scripture. It is no different in Spanish: Sola = Solamente…Scriptura…Escrituras.

Problem with SS lies with its application. Is it a principle? Is it a doctrine? Is it Apostolic Tradition? Etc,etc,etc