Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Skip_Wiley]

Well then Hotshot…

See ya.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

To what Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church is Paul referring in the verse above?

Be specific, please.

I would say that Paul is referring to the same traditions he is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2

[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

This is what he means by “what you were taught.” Notice that he doesn’t say, “stand firm to what it says in the Bible.” It says stand firm to the traditions.

These traditions come from the fact that the Catholic is apostolic - it was founded by Jesus Christ himself and built by the apostles who had direct personal contact with Jesus over several years as he carried out his ministry. John 21:25 says “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Jesus didn’t write a book, he founded a Church, the Catholic Church. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in faith and morals. John 16:13 says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

 

[JRKH]

To what Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church is Paul referring in the verse above?

Be specific, please.

He would be refering to ALL of the teachings that Timothy had recieved either From Paul, or any other true Christian teacher of the time.

As to a specific “Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church” he may well be refering to the Real Presence, or to Peter being the Acknowledged Leader of the Church. Both of these are items that are beliefs from the bible, that are most correctly understood in the Tradition of the Church.
This is what is meant by not trying to seperate Scripture from Tradition.

Hope this helps
James

 

[sandusky]

Mea Culpa:

I would say that Paul is referring to the same traditions he is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2 [15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

This is what he means by “what you were taught.” Notice that he doesn’t say, “stand firm to what it says in the Bible.” It says stand firm to the traditions.

Then what are the traditions Paul taught to the Thessalonians? Please be specific.
Mea Culpa:

These traditions come from the fact that the Catholic is apostolic - it was founded by Jesus Christ himself and built by the apostles who had direct personal contact with Jesus over several years as he carried out his ministry. John 21:25 says “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

SS adherents recognize Jn 21.

From Hodge:It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man’s guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.
Mea Culpa:

Jesus didn’t write a book, he founded a Church, the Catholic Church.

Sure Jesus wrote a book.

From Catechism of the Catholic Church:105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

**John 16:13

“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.**The Spirit speaks what He hears from the one who sent Him. Who is the one who sent the Spirit (see v7)?
Mea Culpa:

The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in faith and morals. John 16:13 says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

There’s nothing in this passage concerning the Church, let alone the Spirit’s protection of the Church from teaching error in faith and morals.

Christ is promising the apostles that when He leaves He’ll send the Spirit to give them a fuller understanding of all He’s taught them, because at this point in time, the boys are clueless.

In a short time, Peter will betray Christ, and except for John, the rest will scatter from Him.

Again, what Oral Traditions of the Catholic Church did Paul teach to the Thessalonians?

 

[sandusky]

JRKH:

He would be refering to ALL of the teachings that Timothy had recieved either From Paul, or any other true Christian teacher of the time.

As to a specific “Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church” he may well be refering to the Real Presence, or to Peter being the Acknowledged Leader of the Church. Both of these are items that are beliefs from the bible, that are most correctly understood in the Tradition of the Church.
This is what is meant by not trying to seperate Scripture from Tradition.

I doubt that He’s teaching them about the real presence, as no one was sure what the real presence meant. History bears that out in that various ideas and notions were kicked around for more than 1,000 years right up to the 4th Lateran Council when the Church defined the real presence in the term of transubstantiation—case closed.

Seems to me, there was no clear and concise Oral Tradition from the apostles concerning the real presence—1181 years to define it speaks LOUDLY to that.

Why would you imagine that Paul was teaching Timothy that Peter was the “Acknowledged Leader of the Church?”

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Then what are the traditions Paul taught to the Thessalonians? Please be specific.

**Since I wasn’t there, I can’t tell you.

Now, you answer me - where in the Bible is *sola scriptura ***taught? (Hint: it’s not taught anywhere in the Bible. It’s unBiblical.)

 

[JRKH]

**I doubt that He’s teaching them **about the real presence, as no one was sure what the real presence meant. History bears that out in that various ideas and notions were kicked around for more than 1,000 years right up to the 4th Lateran Council when the Church defined the real presence in the term of transubstantiation—case closed.

Seems to me, there was no clear and concise Oral Tradition from the apostles concerning the real presence—1181 years to define it speaks LOUDLY to that.

Why would you imagine that Paul was teaching Timothy that Peter was the “Acknowledged Leader of the Church?”

The bolded portion above indicates the difficulty in this kind of a discussion.
First you ask about which "oral’ tradition Paul might be refering to, but then each item we bring up is vulnerable to your “doubt”. It becomes a “catch 22” situation.
It reminds me of when I was working and the company had a disciplinary system in place that called for a “verbal arning to be issued for a first offence. The truly hillarious thing about this “Verbal” warning was that it had to be documented, which meant that the supervisor giving the warning and the employee recieving the warning had to sign a document to that effect. In the same way, SS people want to see where “Oral” Tradition” is “Documented”. Do you see the problem here?

Oral Tradition can take many forms. - Example -
You are taking a Bible Study. Reading dilligently and “Listening” to the leader and other students “Discuss” what is written. You and the Others are “Asking” questions of the '"Teacher"
How much of this give and take is written down? What about the inflection in ones voice? How does one record this? Remember that St. Paul didn’t have emotocons to help him. What about when two different students understand something, but use different terms to describe it? Is one wrong and the other right?
These are the types of things that can be meant by “Oral Tradition”. Jesus “Orally taught”, the Apostles “Orally taught”, their successors, "Orally taught, down through the succeeding generations. Giving valid interpretation to the written word and bringing that word to life because it is the validly passed down teaching and interpretation from the beginning.

Another quick example.
When Playing a piece of classical music, the musician is taught to play it the exact same way that the previous generation was taught. This goes back through the generations to the composer. Why? Because there was no “recording” technology then. The only way for us to hear the pure sound that Bach or Mozart intended in the music is that the composer teaches one generation and then each succeeding genreation passes that precise teaching, of method and sound, on to the next generation. This doesn’t mean that the music isn’t written down, of course it is, but the style, and nuances of the music are passed down by “Oral Tradition”.

Hope this helps

Peace
James

 

[notsmart]

So, what you are really saying is that there was no challenge to the Real Presence until 1181 years after the chrisitan community had believed it to be so? So, in other words novel innovations are to be considered? I would be rather leary to go that route.

I doubt that He’s teaching them about the real presence, as no one was sure what the real presence meant. History bears that out in that various ideas and notions were kicked around for more than 1,000 years right up to the 4th Lateran Council when the Church defined the real presence in the term of transubstantiation—case closed.

Seems to me, there was no clear and concise Oral Tradition from the apostles concerning the real presence—1181 years to define it speaks LOUDLY to that.

Why would you imagine that Paul was teaching Timothy that Peter was the “Acknowledged Leader of the Church?”

 

[sandusky]

Mea Culpa:

Since I wasn’t there, I can’t tell you.

Of course you can’t because you’re using a canned apologetic without using your brain, IMO.

I know what “oral tradition” Paul was speaking of to the Thessalonians.

He was reiterating what he had already told them. Go back to verse 1 of the chapter and begin reading and note v5:** 2 Thessalonians 2:5

Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?**Try reading the Scripture, everything God wants His people to know is contained in it.

From v5 Paul continues with what he had told them.
Mea Culpa:

Now, you answer me - where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught? (Hint: it’s not taught anywhere in the Bible. It’s unBiblical.)

The words in blue are an assertion.

Until you offer some proof that SS is unbiblical, I’ll respond to your assertion with one of my own—SS is not unbiblical.

Now you can begin your Catholic apologetic/polemic against the Bible.

 

[sandusky]

JRKH:

The bolded portion above indicates the difficulty in this kind of a discussion.
First you ask about which "oral’ tradition Paul might be refering to, but then each item we bring up is vulnerable to your “doubt”. It becomes a “catch 22” situation.

The “catch 22” of oral tradition is a Catholic difficulty; it’s not mine.

Also, your bolding takes what I’ve said out of context—I do believe that the apostles, and others taught orally. The question is what did they teach orally; The problem is you can’t tell me for certain.

 

[sandusky]

So, what you are really saying is that there was no challenge to the Real Presence until 1181 years after the chrisitan community had believed it to be so?

That’s not what I’m saying.

My point is that I expect that had there been a clear oral tradition concerning the real presence, the church would have understood the workings of it right from the get go.

But it’s obvious they didn’t—it took more than 1100 years to define it because there was no clear oral tradition concerning it.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

SS is not unbiblical.

**OK, if *sola scriptura ***is not unbiblical, where is it taught in the Bible?

*** crickets chirping ****

You yourself say: “Try reading the Scripture, everything God wants His people to know is contained in it.” OK great, where is *sola scriptura *in there then?

*** crickets chirping ****

If everything God wants His people to know is contained in the Bible, and *sola scriptura *is not in the Bible, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that God does not want His people to know *sola scriptura *(which is true, since it is a false doctrine),

 

[sandusky]

**OK, if *sola scriptura ***is not unbiblical, where is it taught in the Bible?

*** crickets chirping ****

You yourself say: “Try reading the Scripture, everything God wants His people to know is contained in it.” OK great, where is *sola scriptura *in there then?

*** crickets chirping ****

If everything God wants His people to know is contained in the Bible, and *sola scriptura *is not in the Bible, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that God does not want His people to know *sola scriptura *(which is true, since it is a false doctrine),

Asking me more questions does not prove your point.

Perhaps you haven’t read all of the bible, and are therefore unable to put together a coherent argument from it concerning SS, I don’t know, but what you’re offering is not proof, but opinion.

Prove that SS is unbiblical.

*** crickets chirping ***

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Perhaps you haven’t read all of the bible, and are therefore unable to put together a coherent argument from it concerning SS, I don’t know, but what you’re offering is not proof, but opinion.

Prove that SS is unbiblical.

Should I cite where *sola scriptura *is NOT taught in the Bible?

OK, it’s not taught in any place in the Bible.

The proof that sola scriptura is unbiblical is that it isn’t taught anywhere in the Bible.

That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. :yup:

Perhaps, like many protestants, you haven’t read all of the Bible, and therefore don’t know if *sola scriptura *is taught in there or not; I have, and it isn’t. Since you don’t have the fullness of the truth that resides in the Catholic Church, you have been misled by a false teaching.

If you feel I am mistaken, please cite chapter and verse where *sola scriptura *is taught in the Bible.
:banghead:

 

[sandusky]

Mea Culpa:

Should I cite where sola scriptura is NOT taught in the Bible?

OK, it’s not taught in any place in the Bible.

The proof that sola scriptura is unbiblical is that it isn’t taught anywhere in the Bible.

That’s not opinion, that’s a fact.

The converse of your argument is true as well—there are no verses in scripture that teach me not to use scripture as my sole rule of faith and morals, is there?

So you can’t make an explicit case from scripture as to why scripture is not to be used as the sole rule of faith and morals.

Make an implicit case from scripture then.
Mea Culpa:

Since you don’t have the fullness of the truth that resides in the Catholic Church, you have been misled by a false teaching.

Truth is truth, IMO, so perhaps it’s you who is misled.

Be that as it may, after you’ve made the implicit case requested above, explain what you mean by “the fullness of truth?”

 

[McGluke]

There seems to be some issues with, so called “Altar calls” which I, as a catholic, do not understand. Perhaps I simply don’t understand the concept or the objections but here is my take.
John the Baptist “Called” for the Jews to repent and be Baptized, and many came to be baptized. Again in Acts, on Pentacost, the Apostles Spoke Boldly and confidently and people came forward to be taken into the faith, something like 5000 that day I believe. Each of these instances could be considerd an “Altar Call” in my mind, since they were exhortations to repentance and baptism at the end of a message, or sermon.
The simple fact that “Altar Call” is not used in the Bible is really no argument since we also use terms that are not found in the Bible.

If my logic is flawed in the above, please correct me and explain why.

Peace
James

It seems to me that we Catholics too have Altar Calls. We come foreward at every Mass to receive Jesus into our body, heart and soul.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The converse of your argument is true as well—there are no verses in scripture that teach me not to use scripture as my sole rule of faith and morals, is there?

Oh, is that how *sola scriptura *works? Anything not specifically prescribed against in the Bible is OK?

OK, the Bible doesn’t teach me not to use Bugs Bunny cartoons as my sole rule of faith and morals. Therefore, it is OK for me to use Bugs Bunny cartoons as my sole rule of faith and morals. (by your logic)

I’ll take your refusal to provide any citations from Scripture supporting *sola scriptura * as your tacit admission that there are no such passages.

It’s great when we can agree.

Now that we’ve established that *sola scriptura * is not taught anywhere in the Bible, can you tell me why

• someone who claims that “everything God wants His people to know is contained in it” (your words)
• accepts the false doctrine of sola scriptura, which is not taught in the Bible?

It seems contradictory to me.

Everything we need to know is in the Bible - *sola scriptura *is not in the Bible - therefore, *sola scriptura *is not something we need to know!

 

[McGluke]

The converse of your argument is true as well—there are no verses in scripture that teach me not to use scripture as my sole rule of faith and morals, is there?

So you can’t make an explicit case from scripture as to why scripture is not to be used as the sole rule of faith and morals.

Make an implicit case from scripture then.

Truth is truth, IMO, so perhaps it’s you who is misled.

Be that as it may, after you’ve made the implicit case requested above, explain what you mean by “the fullness of truth?”

Two passages come to mind right away that tell us that implicitly and explicitly that scripture is not the sole rule of faith.

John 21:24-25 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by **word of mouth **or by letter.

The “fullness of truth” is transmitted through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture via the Church. And, keep in mind that Paul tells us that the Church, not scripture" is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
The bolded portion above indicates the difficulty in this kind of a discussion.
First you ask about which "oral’ tradition Paul might be refering to, but then each item we bring up is vulnerable to your “doubt”. It becomes a “catch 22” situation.

Not at all. Catholics have no difficulty with oral tradition.
The difficulty of which you speak is an eccumenical one.

Also, your bolding takes what I’ve said out of context—I do believe that the apostles, and others taught orally. The question is what did they teach orally; The problem is you can’t tell me for certain.

I can tell you for certain that they taught EVERYTHING orally since, with the exceptions of Mark and John, none of the apostles wrote a Gospel.

As for my bolding taking your comment out of context, that was not my intent.
I am sure that your lifing only the first three lines of my much longer post was also not intended to take it out of context.
My point was to demonstrate that, when a person insists on everything being written in order to be proven, it is practically impossible to have a meaningful conversation. I tried to illustrate that in my previous post, but you chose to ignore that in your response.
Tradition, particularly “Oral Tradition” can and does mean much more than simply some doctrine or practice that was not written down.
Please re-read my previous post with the understanding that I am not trying to be tricky, but rather to broaden your understadning of what “Oral Tradition” might entail.

Peace
James

 

[KathleenElsie]

Actually, they didn’t read it at all because the Catholic church wouldn’t let them.

Had to answer this one.

I only have twelve Catholic Bibles (three versions) in the house and seven of the abridged Protestant Bibles (various versions) on hand.

My family and I have read through the Bible many times. There is even one called “THE CATHOLIC ONE YEAR BIBLE” not my favorite but it is available.

All written material (the BIBLE etc) prior to the invention of the printing press was done by hand by rabbis, monks and a few scholars. Scribes were used to read the written materials available to the masses and to pen the important things needed to be conveyed. Most of the working classes (note not all) could not read nor write at the time the original biblical letters were written by the apostles.

Hand written materials were very fragile and easily destroyed or broken. And as a priest explained just this week, the actual cost of these hand written books would have exceed 10 years income for the well educated trades person. So not many average people had copies of the Bible available to them.

As for Holy Mother Church not allowing people to read the Bible. That is untrue for the Bible was used as a text in all places of education till recent times. Only since the schools have become secular in nature has the Bible been replaces by other texts.