Sola Scriptura (continued)

[Godfollower]

So, I ask again, as I did in my first post: with 2 Timothy 3:16, why do we need Roman Catholic Traditions, which are, after all, traditions of men? (Matthew 15:2-6, Colossians 2:8)

Your premise is incorrect. The teaching Tradition of the Church (as opposed to small-T traditions, like what color to decorate the church during Lent) is not a tradition of men. It is the accumulated traditions we were taught by the Apostles and their successors:

But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

2 Thessalonians 2:12-16 (Douay Rheims).

You’re right that we’re not supposed to let “traditions of men” outweigh our duty to God. You go astray when you assume that the long-standing Tradition of the Church is the same thing as the Pharisees’ flouting of God’s law (for that matter, you also go astray when you assume that “traditions of men” are somehow bad; they’re perfectly fine as long as we don’t elevate them above God’s commands).

So, to sum up: Paul taught us that we were to “hold fast” to the traditions he taught – whether written down or passed on by word of mouth. The doctrine of sola scriptura violates half of that instruction and is therefore unbiblical.

 

[Godfollower]

So, I ask again, as I did in my first post: with 2 Timothy 3:16, why do we need Roman Catholic Traditions, which are, after all, traditions of men? (Matthew 15:2-6, Colossians 2:8)

As for why we need the Catholic Church to explain the Bible, well, the Bible says so:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:20-21.

as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15-16.

Moreover, Scripture itself tells us that it is not to be understood by individual interpretation:

And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?

Acts 8:27-31.

Finally, Jesus Himself taught that the vineyard would be taken away from the previous workers and given to others; and the Bible says that the chief priests and Pharisees realized that he was talking about them:

Hear ye another parable. There was a man an householder, who planted a vineyard, and made a hedge round about it, and dug in it a press, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen; and went into a strange country. And when the time of the fruits drew nigh, he sent his servants to the husbandmen that they might receive the fruits thereof. And the husbandmen laying hands on his servants, beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants more than the former; and they did to them in like manner. And last of all he sent to them his son, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen seeing the son, said among themselves: This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and we shall have his inheritance. And taking him, they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen? They say to him: He will bring those evil men to an evil end; and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, that shall render him the fruit in due season. Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes. Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they knew that he spoke of them.

Matthew 21:33-45.

Jesus took His vineyard away from the priests and gave it to others who would bring Him the fruit in its season. Clearly He gave the Church to the Apostles, and clearly they established their successors. Clearly the Bible can be difficult to understand. Clearly He taught that the Bible is not to be interpreted by each Christian alone, but rather according to the teaching authority of the Church. Clearly the doctrine of sola scriptura is false.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Your premise is incorrect. The teaching Tradition of the Church (as opposed to small-T traditions, like what color to decorate the church during Lent) is not a tradition of men. It is the accumulated traditions we were taught by the Apostles and their successors:

2 Thessalonians 2:12-16 (Douay Rheims).

Even giving the point to you now that the word is correctly translated as “traditions” (small “t”, not bug “T” ) instead of “teachings”, this is the stuff that they taught then and there, not the extra stuff that is what RCT teaches today. That most definitely has come from men - for it is not found in the Bible!

You’re right that we’re not supposed to let “traditions of men” outweigh our duty to God. You go astray when you assume that the long-standing Tradition of the Church is the same thing as the Pharisees’ flouting of God’s law (for that matter, you also go astray when you assume that “traditions of men” are somehow bad; they’re perfectly fine as long as we don’t elevate them above God’s commands).

Above, or even side-by-side.

As for Pharisees and their flaunting…I cannot but look into the AAA section before I feel my blood begin to boil with some of the crazy “letter of the law, not spirit of the law” claims! Marriage seems to be a big one - the RC seems to be firmly Pharisee-ish and Legalistic about it.

So, to sum up: Paul taught us that we were to “hold fast” to the traditions he taught – whether written down or passed on by word of mouth. The doctrine of sola scriptura violates half of that instruction and is therefore unbiblical.

Or, Paul tells us to follow what he taught them…which was what the NT says and has captured anyway. And thus sola scripture is not violating anything, but rather is firmly biblical.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Interesting Would you want to continue that discussion? I can have a read through and offer my thoughts, but it seems to have been quiet for a while now…?

Thanks for your post! As far as that discussion goes, it’s almost two years old, so I don’t know if resurrecting it is necessary at this point. If you want to discuss some of the points in a new thread, that might be more useful. I should mention, though, that I’ll be away from the Internet for quite some time, so I don’t think I’ll be able to participate for a while.

God bless!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Even giving the point to you now that the word is correctly translated as “traditions” (small “t”, not bug “T” ) instead of “teachings”, this is the stuff that they taught then and there, not the extra stuff that is what RCT teaches today. That most definitely has come from men - for it is not found in the Bible!

So why is the Canon of the NT not a “tradition of men”? As you said, “that most definitely has come from men - for it is not found in the Bible!”

Using your logic means no list of the Inspired books in the Bible equals a tradition of men, and as you said, with 2 Tim. 3:16, why do we need traditions of men?

God bless

 

[hvg3akaek]

As for why we need the Catholic Church to explain the Bible, well, the Bible says so:
2 Peter 1:20-21.

You might need a new version?

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20-21

Importantly - the prophet’s own interpretation.

2 Peter 3:15-16.

Well, this one does not help you at all! Yes, they are hard. And yes, the “unlearned and unstable” twist them. But so what of it? I can say that RCT has twisted what the Bible says of Mary. Can you argue against that?

Moreover, Scripture itself tells us that it is not to be understood by individual interpretation:

Acts 8:27-31.

…umm…yes, the Ethiopian eunuch needed help. He only had the OT, and had not yet heard the gospel. He needed to hear it. I, personally, have already head the gospel - have you? I have read the NT - have you? I have received the Holy Spirit - have you? I hope so on all accounts.

We are not in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch. DO not try to twist scripture to make it as if we were.

Finally, Jesus Himself taught that the vineyard would be taken away from the previous workers and given to others; and the Bible says that the chief priests and Pharisees realized that he was talking about them:

Matthew 21:33-45.

I agree, it does say that Jesus was talking about the Pharasees.

Jesus took His vineyard away from the priests and gave it to others who would bring Him the fruit in its season.

Again, I agree.

Clearly He gave the Church to the Apostles,

Yes, indeed he did, to them and those who followed him.

and clearly they established their successors.

And here you fail.
Read through the NT, find apostles dying, and note the lack of replacements. Additionally, if they were all to be succeeded, there should be 12 popes now, shouldn’t there?

Clearly the Bible can be difficult to understand.

Despite the homorous way you have worded this, I agree

Clearly He taught that the Bible is not to be interpreted by each Christian alone, but rather according to the teaching authority of the Church.

And - nope. You have offered no evidence of this. You are welcome to try again, but what you have offered does not stand to a few moments of scrutiny.

Clearly the doctrine of sola scriptura is false.

And you have clearly not shown this. Not even in an opaque fashion

-hvg3

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I cannot but look into the AAA section before I feel my blood begin to boil with some of the crazy “letter of the law, not spirit of the law” claims! Marriage seems to be a big one - the RC seems to be firmly Pharisee-ish and Legalistic about it.

Not to change the subject, but I just want to quickly say that the Catholic Church takes marriage very seriously, and I truly believe this is one of the Church’s greatest strengths. Unfortunately, many other Churches have begun to be a bit less “legalistic,” and marriage in our society has suffered for it.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Here is 1 Timothy 1:3:

1 Timothy 1:3 - As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…

Why did Paul tell Timothy to correct the teachings of certain people in Ephesus? Would it not have been better for him to say, “Remain at Ephesus that you may urge everyone to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, in order that they may arrive at their own personal interpretations of the truth?” Or was there perhaps some sort of authoritative system at work?

 

[hvg3akaek]

Hello again, Roman_Catholic!

I think you have not quite answered my questions here yet. I would greatly appreciate it if you did!

So why is the Canon of the NT not a “tradition of men”? As you said, “that most definitely has come from men - for it is not found in the Bible!”

The same way that I can say that I believe in the Trinity. It was worked out and deduced from the Bible - no, it is not spelt out there, but with just the bible, and no other “inspired” knowledge, it is possible (and, i believe, probable) that one can arrive at the conclusion that the Trinity exists.

This can be done without Roman Catholic Tradition, thus I can hold that both the concept of the Trinity and Sola Scriture are correct.

I do not rely on RCT to decide for me what is and what is not biblical canon, else I would have the apocrypha, including its tales of draconic adventures, in my bible. I don’t.

Using your logic means no list of the Inspired books in the Bible equals a tradition of men, and as you said, with 2 Tim. 3:16, why do we need traditions of men?

Not at all, as reasoning and thought and historical evidence =/= Tradition.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Not to change the subject, but I just want to quickly say that the Catholic Church takes marriage very seriously, and I truly believe this is one of the Church’s greatest strengths. Unfortunately, many other Churches have begun to be a bit less “legalistic,” and marriage in our society has suffered for it.

Yes, they do take it seriously, and that is not my issue. I only wish that the rest of the world could be more serious about marriage!

No, my issue is with their legalistic approach to marriage, as displayed in this answer here. There was another (about whether a couple married outside of RC were allowed to have sex, and the answer was likewise - no, not until you are properly married)

The problem is this very legalistic approach does more damage than good. But, as you have said, that is a different topic. One that I won’t bother to start at the moment, seeing as it will just come back to this thread again

Here is 1 Timothy 1:3:
Why did Paul tell Timothy to correct the teachings of certain people in Ephesus?

There is nothing wrong with teaching, when one teaches accurately, faithfully and truthfully from the Bible.

(aside, the NIV says “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer”, which makes it more about not teaching falsely, rather than teaching anything)

Would it not have been better for him to say, “Remain at Ephesus that you may urge everyone to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, in order that they may arrive at their own personal interpretations of the truth?”

No - for if we have God’s word, why not use it? We still have people give sermons and talks in our churches, but at the end of them, we (and they) realise* that the speaker is fallible, and that we should not just take their word for it - but rather, check what the scriptures say, as the Bereans do in Acts 17:11, and are praised for. And that is what we should do today, too. (After all - this is Paul they were checking up on! How much more should we check up on people who haven’t written any books of the Bible? )

-hvg3

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think you have not quite answered my questions here yet. I would greatly appreciate it if you did!

I didn’t answer your questions about Mary because this is not the thread for those. The question is not why I didn’t answer these questions, the question is why you asked them.

The same way that I can say that I believe in the Trinity. It was worked out and deduced from the Bible - no, it is not spelt out there, but with just the bible, and no other “inspired” knowledge, it is possible (and, i believe, probable) that one can arrive at the conclusion that the Trinity exists.

I didn’t ask about the Trinity. I asked about the Canon of the Bible. The possibility that you may or may not be able to, “deduce” from the Bible the Trinity does not prove Sola Scripture.

Your above quote does not work with this statement of yours, I will call it your rule #1:

That most definitely has come from men - for it is not found in the Bible!

It was you that established this rule not me. I am simply asking you to follow through with what you are requiring Catholics to do.

Another rule that you established, rule #2:

with 2 Tim. 3:16, why do we need traditions of men?

If the Canon of the Bible is not found in Scripture (which I assume it isnt because you didnt provide me with the book and verse that it is found) then, using your rule #1 it is a tradition of men. If it is a tradition of men, what use is the Canon of Scripture when we put your rule #2 against it?

I do not rely on RCT to decide for me what is and what is not biblical canon, else I would have the apocrypha, including its tales of draconic adventures, in my bible. I don’t.

I never said you did. Simply tell me what you relly on to decide for you and we will go from there. If it be the Bible, fine. Show me where in the Bible the list of the inspired books are at.

God bless

 

[hvg3akaek]

I didn’t ask about the Trinity. I asked about the Canon of the Bible. The possibility that you may or may not be able to, “deduce” from the Bible the Trinity does not prove Sola Scripture.

You are quite right, you did not ask about the Trinity. I added that to the conversation in what some people call “an example”. I saw a relationship that was similar to the one you were asking about, and thus I used it in an attempt to explain further the relationship/process you were asking about.

Your above quote does not work with this statement of yours, I will call it your rule #1:

Call it what you will But it is your rule, not mine!

I made a statement about one thing. You are the one misapplying that now.

Another rule that you established, rule #2:

A question is hardly a rule. Although it is still a question that remains unanswered.

If the Canon of the Bible is not found in Scripture (which I assume it isnt because you didnt provide me with the book and verse that it is found) then, using your rule #1 it is a tradition of men.

Nope, faulty logic.

Coming from men =/= tradition of men.

Simply tell me what you relly on to decide for you and we will go from there. If it be the Bible, fine. Show me where in the Bible the list of the inspired books are at.

…once again: compliance with the scriptures. (that is, OT).
Eye witness accounts.
Things written by people who were there.
Accurate historical documents.
Lack of disagreement in the early church (that is, up to ~100AD)

 

[NotWorthy]

But then, maybe Peter only knew of those letters that are in the NT? I don’t know.

Do you know of other letters of Paul’s?

Such as? (I am not aware of this…)

You can tell from reading the two Letters to the Corinthians that Paul wrote at least 4 of them.

Incidentally, if any of these letters were to surface today, the Catholic Church could examine them to see if they are inspired or not, even adding them to the NT Canon.

But the odds of that happening are… I’d say pretty low.

 

[NotWorthy]

Fair enough - I like that answer!

So both of them had good reasons to believe it. And so because I know they have these good reasons, can I not believe the same as they did, and not have to work it out for myself? I mean, if God said the OT was His word, can I not have faith that it is? If God inspired Peter to acknowledge God’s writing through Paul, can I not have faith that it is so?

With that, what reason is there to require anyone else to OK them for me?

So according to your logic, only Paul’s Epistles are Scriptural.

What you are contininuing to dance around is that it is Sacred Tradition that gives you the NT Canon, the one thing that you continue to deny.

You still haven’t revealed what determined the OT Canon for you.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hey thanks hvg3akaek

…once again: compliance with the scriptures. (that is, OT).
Eye witness accounts.
Things written by people who were there.
Accurate historical documents.
Lack of disagreement in the early church (that is, up to ~100AD)

Now that you have establish that these are the guidelines you use in determining what books are scriptural, I need to know where you got these guidelines at in the Bible. So book and verse please.

God bless

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Coming from men =/= tradition of men.

So, I am puzzled. If a tradition which has been passed down by men is not a tradition of men, what is?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You still haven’t answered the question: How do you know that the Bible is inspired? How do you know what books to include and which not to include? And most importantly (for the sola scriptura crowd) where is that in the Bible?

The same way that I can say that I believe in the Trinity. It was worked out and deduced from the Bible - no, it is not spelt out there, but with just the bible, and no other “inspired” knowledge, it is possible (and, i believe, probable) that one can arrive at the conclusion that the Trinity exists.

This can be done without Roman Catholic Tradition, thus I can hold that both the concept of the Trinity and Sola Scriture are correct.

Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up. Imagine that the Bible is dropped off at an isolated tropical island. It is in the language of the natives, so they can read it. Show how, without any outside influence telling them how to interpret it, they come to the knowledge of the Trinity.

…once again: compliance with the scriptures. (that is, OT).
Eye witness accounts.
Things written by people who were there.
Accurate historical documents.
Lack of disagreement in the early church (that is, up to ~100AD)

It can be argued that Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses but learned the faith from the Apostles. Paul was a witness to the Resurrection on the road to Damascus, but where did he learn the rest of the faith?

There are many historical documents from that period, like Roman governmental decrees and such, and secular historian’s works. Why aren’t they then in the Bible?

Lack of disagreement?! You’re kidding right?! Most of Paul’s correspondence was to correct errant thinking in the communities he founded. One example, out of many, many, many possible examples:

“I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.” (1 Corinthians 1:10-11) - and it goes on from there.

You might need a new version?

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20-21

Importantly - the prophet’s own interpretation.

The NIV is one of the worst translations I have ever seen of the Bible. For serious study in English, your best bet is the RSV:

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

The Latin has it: “hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia Scripturae propria interpretatione non fit; non enim voluntate humana prolata est prophetia aliquando, sed a Spiritu Sancto ducti locuti sunt a Deo homines.”

The key phrase is: propria interpretatione - this means one’s own interpretation:

proprius -a -um [one’s own , special, peculiar, characteristic; lasting, permanent]. Hence adv. proprie, [exclusively, peculiarly, characteristically; in a proper sense].

interpretatio -onis f. [explanation , interpretation, translation]. Transf., [meaning, signification].

Well, this one does not help you at all! Yes, they are hard. And yes, the “unlearned and unstable” twist them. But so what of it? I can say that RCT has twisted what the Bible says of Mary. Can you argue against that?

Yes, it can be argued, and has - and has been refuted. The Catholic teaching on Mary is not contradictory to Scripture, unlike the common Protestant understanding of Mary which is in direct conflict with Scripture.

Read through the NT, find apostles dying, and note the lack of replacements. Additionally, if they were all to be succeeded, there should be 12 popes now, shouldn’t there?

No, but there are the Bishops, who are the direct successors of the Apostles.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

hvg3akaek,

Look at it this way. You are holding a book called Bible in your hands and saying that all the books and letters in it are inspired. How can you say that? How do you know that the ALL of the books are inspired?

Unless God has personally revealed it to you, you can’t just know that. Additionally, none of the books in the Bible say which books are to be considered as inspired. Even if the Bible listed them, how would you know that the book which gives you the list is inspired and has the authority to make such claims?

So, the Bible doesn’t say that it is inspired; it doesn’t give us a list of the books we should consider as inspired; no God’s angel (I suppose) has come to any of us to to tell us how the thing really are.

So how can you say that Bible is inspired? How do you know know it is inspired.
It is a matter of blind faith - meaning you simply accept it?
Or is it because it speaks about Jesus and the apostles? In this case you will need to include many more books than the ones you already believe in.
Or do you accept some authority that decided it for you?
Or is do you have a different reason?

 

[hvg3akaek]

You can tell from reading the two Letters to the Corinthians that Paul wrote at least 4 of them.

So I guess the big question is - was there anything in these letters that is missing from the NT?

Would God allow part of his message to be missed, to be left out, or would our Sovereign Lord make sure the NT contained exactly what He wanted it to contain?

Incidentally, if any of these letters were to surface today, the Catholic Church could examine them to see if they are inspired or not, even adding them to the NT Canon.

Indeed they could. And so could an Anglican church, or a Baptist church, or another denomination, or a grouping of Protestants. Or just me, personally.

I do not believe that any one group (especially me ) would have the sole, infallible right or ability to do so, but I also do not believe the task would be above any of them, as long as they put enough time, thought, study, and prayer into it.

But the odds of that happening are… I’d say pretty low.

Indeed!

So according to your logic, only Paul’s Epistles are Scriptural.

Clearly, a very incorrect conclusion.
The correct conclusion would be that they were definitely scriptural.

What you are contininuing to dance around is that it is Sacred Tradition that gives you the NT Canon, the one thing that you continue to deny.

And it it something that I will continue to deny,for it is simply not true

You still haven’t revealed what determined the OT Canon for you.

I think this shows one of two things.

(1) You are (accidentally or purposefully) skipping over my posts, or parts thereof, or
(2) You should stop wearing sunglasses whilst using the computer

 

[hvg3akaek]

Now that you have establish that these are the guidelines you use in determining what books are scriptural, I need to know where you got these guidelines at in the Bible. So book and verse please.

sigh

You are failing to see something very important here.

Do you need to have divine revelation to decide whether it is raining outside?
Do you need to have an infallible pope to decide whether Josephus was actually written a couple of thousand of years ago, or last week?
Do you need your “Traditions” to inform you if the newspaper you are reading is accurately relating to you the news?
Do you need Bible references to work out if three different and separate witnesses are telling the truth of a crime they saw?

Please, tell me.

-hvg3