Sola Scriptura: Historically Sound

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maratom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you tell me the important doctrines that this oral tradition contains?

The bulk, if not all of it, is found in the catechism. There are also important doctrines in the Early Fathers
kaycee;1996323:
Well hearing the word preached will certainly lead one to salvation. Ummm, what traditions is he talking about that is not found the New testament?
I can’t really say, since I was not present. 🙂 However, I know there are important things that were not contained in the written word.
In reality you are fighting a straw man here.
I do not understand what that means. A straw man arguement is when you make up something that does not exist, then try to knock it down. The thread title seems to suggest that Sola Scriptura is historically sound. I am saying that history reflects otherwise, which one can only see by taking into account the oral traditions, writings of the period, and the Patristic testimonies.
I believe most of the New Testament was written within 10 to 20 years of the resurrection. No one denies that the Oral presentation of the Gospel existed before it was written down.
Certainly the verses that speak about tradition do not indicate in any way that this tradition was in any way a different message than what was written down. Why would it be?
It would not be! At least we agree on one point, that the content of the traditions contains the same message as the written. I think where we differ is that they both have the same weight for Catholics, but not for protestants.
All the tenets of the Faith are repeated many times over in different passages and yet some oral tradition, some extrabiblical doctrines somehow remained oral makes no sense.
I guess I don’t know why that would not make sense to you. But, eventually, when the making of books evolved, the oral traditions were also written.
Since important doctrine is repeated many times in many places in the scripture, whatever this oral tradition is, cannot be all that important.
For you, perhaps not. But for those of us who are part of the Church that Jesus founded, the oral teaching is as important as the written, especially in the light that Jesus wrote no books.
The scripture cannot be twisted to make it say what you want.
Well, most clearly it can! People do it all the time! Do you know where your “sola scriptura” doctrine came from?
 
To further Janet S’s (well made) point, Paul wrote at least 4 letters to the Corinthians. Were all of them inspired? Evidently not.
Are you saying that nothing was ever written that is inspired if it is not in the canon?
 
Code:
I'll seed you ONE POINT.  I should have said correctly "A member of the eklektos {chosen} has **ZERO tradition of any identifiable church on this planet.**  You know as well as I do that the Scriptures specifically command us to come out of this nonsense...
Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:4-5 ESV)
Ok, I think you are asserting here that real members of the Jesus body the Church don’t have traditions. Adn I think you are using this scripture to support your assertion that real Christians don’t have traditions. Since you are referring to plagues, sins, and iniquties, it appears that you consider traditions to be sins. Do I have that right?
I only need to watch about five minutes of a mass to see dozens of “traditions” that have ABSOLUTELY no basis in Scripture. And I’ll guarantee that the “traditions” that Paul speaks of are REJECTED by the churches of men. I’ll point to just one as an example…
I think the issue of the Mass being unscriptural I will have to move to another thread, which I will do when I finish this post. I will also agree with you that the holy traditions passed to us through the Apostolic succession have been REJECTED by the churches of men. As far as I can tell, they are only accepted within the Church of Jesus.🙂
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matthew 5:44 KJVR)

Honestly. Does EVERY catholic, protestant, baptist, jw, etc., etc. etc. believe this?? You know as well as I do that they do not. If each, as they claim, are the true “church” WHY NOT? They ARE the words of Jesus Christ!
ARe you saying that this commandment of Jesus is one of the traditions, and is being rejected? Are you somehow equating this commandment of Jesus with the same traditions you spoke of before that we should come out of? if this is the case,then I guess abandoning the commandment of God is actually obedient to the commandment in Revelation to “come away” from all that tradition? That is a VERY strange arguement!
 
I only need to watch about five minutes of a mass to see dozens of “traditions” that have ABSOLUTELY no basis in Scripture. And I’ll guarantee that the “traditions” that Paul speaks of are REJECTED by the churches of men. I’ll point to just one as an example…
Here are some facts you probably don’t know:

–Througout the history of the Church, the Bible was used as a liturgical book and was read during Mass. From the Council of Carthage in AD 419, Canon XXIV states: “That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.” After this statement, there is a list of the 73 books Catholics now have in their Bibles. Protestants have this same list of books with the exclusion of the OT books Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, I & II Maccabees, and Baruch which were removed after the Reformation.

–The Mass can be seen in the book of Revelation. From Scott Hahn (an ex-Presbyterian minister):
“I realized that in the Mass I was really seeing on earth what was taking place in the heavenly liturgy that John describes in the Apocalypse. And then, on the pages of the Book of Revelation, I realized just how significant, how dramatic—how world-changing—the sacrificial worship of the Church on earth is. We are alongside the angels and the saints, singing the same songs, offering the same prayers, and watching God step into history and intervene decisively to deliver his people, or to bring down judgment, or to do whatever’s necessary to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009bite.asp

–Catholics read 3 or 4 Bible readings at every Mass. On Sundays there are 1 OT reading, 1 NT Epistle reading, 1 Psalm, 1 Gospel reading; on weekdays there is no Epistle reading.

–The responses in the Mass are straight out of the Bible. Do these sound familiar to you? These are from the Mass:

“Glory to God in the highest”
“Holy, holy, holy Lord God”
“Take and eat; this is my body”
“This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.”
“Lord, I am not worthy”
“Our Father, who art in heaven”
“Do this in memory of me”

The fact is that the Mass is full of Scripture. I’m not sure what perspective you are coming from, but you are wrong about the Catholic Mass having “traditions” that have no basis in Scripture.
 
Oliver << I for one do not want to have to explain to Jesus Christ that I lied to people and told them that the God of Love planned from the beginning to TORTURE and mame a LARGE portion of His creation FOREVER. It is Scripturally false. >>

As much as we dislike the doctrine of Hell, it is the teaching of Scripture. But Catholics are not Calvinists so we do not believe in “double predestination.” An article on my site covers this subject, based on a Jim Burnham article:

Calvinism and Catholicism Contrasted

Pretty impressive site you have (a lot of content at least), but I see you are coming from a older spin-off of the Worldwide Church of God, when it was known by cult researchers as "Armstrongism" correct?

I see you deny the doctrine of the Trinity and teach Armstrong’s “God Family” concept in your article here. That’s too bad. 😦

I will admit if Herbert W. Armstrong was a true prophet of God, then the Catholic Church must be wrong. But there’s little evidence Armstrong had anything right. :rolleyes:

Here are two articles on my site on “soul sleep” and Hell…

Examination of Conditional Immortality, Soul Sleep, and Annihilationism

My Will be Done: A Study of the Doctrine of Hell

Here’s a short one on the Trinity, but that’s for another thread…

Biblical Defense of the Trinity

Phil P
 
Are you saying that nothing was ever written that is inspired if it is not in the canon?
No, I’m not. But I do understand that there were more letters of Paul that were documented to be authored by Paul, but they were considered for canonization and not accepted as inspired.

I heard someone say (I think it was Fr. Robert Altier) that if they found a letter or Gospel that had not been previously considered for the Canon, that the Church could legally consider it for canonization (this would seem very unlikely, though).
 
Can you tell me the important doctrines that this oral tradition contains?
It would take many (probably hundreds) pages to write all that and then some, but I can give you and example: The Trinity and its details, which are not clearly expressed in the bible. That is definitely important.
Well hearing the word preached will certainly lead one to salvation. Ummm, what traditions is he talking about that is not found the New testament?
Well, you cannot really separate the oral traditions from the written, as the ORAL are necessary to understand the written. If you don’t take them into account, you would be interpreting scripture as an untaught person and the bible clearly says that an untaught person would “distort scripture to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

So, when you read scripture, oral Sacred Tradition comes along to allow you give the correct meaning to scripture. So, if you want to know what the oral Sacred Traditions are, is very simple, most of the time you can take a passage from scripture and then you see the meaning the Church gives it, as the Church maintains the Traditions through an interrupted succession of teachers (2 Tim 2:2).
I believe most of the New Testament was written within 10 to 20 years of the resurrection.
Wrong! it took over over 50 years to complete the N.T. The last book, the apocalypse was written around 90 A.D.
No one denies that the Oral presentation of the Gospel existed before it was written down.
And why would they dissapear after that? John tells, at the end of the Gospel he wrote, that many things that JESUS did were not written down.
Certainly the verses that speak about tradition do not indicate in any way that this tradition was in any way a different message than what was written down. Why would it be?
Indeed it is the same message, but the written Tradition (Scripture) and the Oral Traditions are PARTS of this same message. IF you take one but neglect the other you are not getting the whole message, and more than likely you will distort that message, as it normally happens when you don’t take things in context because you are missing parts of it.
All the tenets of the Faith are repeated many times over in different passages and yet some oral tradition, some extrabiblical doctrines somehow remained oral makes no sense.
Listen, everyone has a Tradition in the light of which they interpret the BIBLE. A baptist would interpret teh bible in the light of their own tradition, a lutheran in the light of their own, a presbyterian, methodist, etc. What you have to see is which Tradition is the TRUE Tradition, which by knowing it will keep you from being an untaught person when reading the bible and would keep you from distorting what the bible said, as the bible itself says it happens with untaught persons (2 Peter 3:16).

So whether you accept it or not, every one follows a Tradition. Which one would you follow? one that showed up no earlier than the 16th century and has changed and divided thousands of times, or one that has been transmitted through an interrupted succession of teachers from Christ and the Apostles until today?
Since important doctrine is repeated many times in many places in the scripture, whatever this oral tradition is, cannot be all that important.
WRONG! without knowing it you are an untaught person and you end up distorting scripture to your own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
The scripture cannot be twisted to make it say what you want.
Where are you living dude?.. thousands and thousands of protestant denominations each having their own intepretation of the bible and each claiming they have the correct one.

I remind you that EVEN the DEVIL twisted scripture to make it say what he wanted.

Blessings,

E.C.
 
He is not questioning that either Clement, or Polycarp were known by the apostles; he is saying that the authorship of the books of Clement 1, and Polycarp are questionable.
And several New Testament books were not? Even the authorship of some Gospel books are in question. That being the case, what was then the basis of the Council of Carthage, other than it was handed down to us by our fathers? Hhmm…sola scriptura certainly was not in mind in the early Church.
 
Can you tell me the important doctrines that this oral tradition contains?

Since important doctrine is repeated many times in many places in the scripture, whatever this oral tradition is, cannot be all that important.

The scripture cannot be twisted to make it say what you want.
A PARTIAL List of Catholic Traditions

Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo

By the way, why do you seek a list from an authority you refuse to recognize, anyway?

If you want it simply because you think we must recognized such a list, then please understand that as Catholics, we don’t need a list because we have a living Teaching Authority to tell us what is and isn’t Sacred Tradition.

As for twisting scripture, who tries to declare that they are justified by “faith alone” when James 2:24 clearly says the exact opposite?

Or the “sola scriptura” is valid when the Bible itself teaches no such thing.
 
No, I’m not. But I do understand that there were more letters of Paul that were documented to be authored by Paul, but they were considered for canonization and not accepted as inspired.
I would like to learn more about this. I don’t know of other letters of paul that were considered and not accepted./FONT]
 
The scripture cannot be twisted to make it say what you want.
Are you so sure? As a former Evangelical I debated with JWs and they easily twist the Scriptures. Take a look at the 30,000 groups of Protestants that all claim to follow the Bible alone.

Only the Catholic Church fulfills the teaching role of Interpreter (1 Peter 1:20).

That is a simple fact.
 
Are you so sure? As a former Evangelical I debated with JWs and they easily twist the Scriptures. Take a look at the 30,000 groups of Protestants that all claim to follow the Bible alone.

Only the Catholic Church fulfills the teaching role of Interpreter (1 Peter 1:20).

That is a simple fact.
How can anyone look at the tempation of Jesus in the desert, and Satan’s facility with the scripture, and not accept that it can be twisted, and well used by the father of lies?
 
How can anyone look at the tempation of Jesus in the desert, and Satan’s facility with the scripture, and not accept that it can be twisted, and well used by the father of lies?
This is TRUE!.. THis ex-protestant pastor I know, in his last sermon before his catholic conversion, he was booed off the pulpit because he said:

“The Devil was protestant, because he interpreted scripture in the same way protestants do, that is, in accord to what they want to prove or believe in”

Although I think he went over the edge a bit, I can see his point.

Regards,

E.C.
 
This is TRUE!.. THis ex-protestant pastor I know, in his last sermon before his catholic conversion, he was booed off the pulpit because he said:

“The Devil was protestant, because he interpreted scripture in the same way protestants do, that is, in accord to what they want to prove or believe in”

Although I think he went over the edge a bit, I can see his point.

Regards,

E.C.
I would’ve given anything to hear that. 😃
 
You lost me when you spoke of hell. Noone is going to this imaginary place. You really need to dig into this false teaching because it will be put in your face during judgement. I for one do not want to have to explain to Jesus Christ that I lied to people and told them that the God of Love planned from the beginning to TORTURE and mame a LARGE portion of His creation FOREVER. It is Scripturally false. One example…

If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:15 ESV)

THE WORKS are burned up in judgenment, NOT THE MAN.
Matthew
Chapter 13:30
30
Let them grow together until harvest; 11 then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’"
39-42
Code:
e weeds are the children of the evil one,
39
and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, 20 and the harvesters are angels.
40
Just as weeds are collected and burned (up) with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
41
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom 21 all who cause others to sin and all evildoers.
42
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.
Chapter 25:46
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
 
This is TRUE!.. THis ex-protestant pastor I know, in his last sermon before his catholic conversion, he was booed off the pulpit because he said:
“The Devil was protestant, because he interpreted scripture in the same way protestants do, that is, in accord to what they want to prove or believe in”
Although I think he went over the edge a bit, I can see his point.
Regards,
E.C.
Sounds like this pastor agrees with Vincent of Lerins:
From “A Commonitory” written in AD 434.
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume34/vincent3401.cfm

CHAPTER XXV. (#64-67)
Heretics appeal to Scripture that they may more easily succeed in deceiving.

CHAPTER XXVI. (#68 & 69)
Heretics, in quoting Scripture, follow the example of the Devil.

CHAPTER XXVII. (#70)
What Rule is to be observed in the Interpretation of Scripture

[68.] BUT some one will say, What proof have we that the Devil is wont to appeal to Holy Scripture? Let him read the Gospels wherein it is written, “Then the Devil took Him (the Lord the Saviour) and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and said unto Him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, that they may keep thee in all thy ways: In their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perchance thou dash thy foot against a stone.”(2) What sort of treatment must men, insignificant wretches that they are, look for at the hands of him who assailed even the Lord of Glory with quotations from Scripture? “If thou be the Son of God,” saith be, “cast the, self down.” Wherefore? “For,” saith he, “it is written.” It behoves us to pay special attention to this passage and bear it in mind, that, warned by so important an instance of Evangelical authority, we may be assured beyond doubt, when we find people alleging passages from the Apostles or Prophets against the Catholic Faith, that the Devil speaks through their mouths. For as then the Head spoke to the Head, so now also the members speak to the members, the members of the Devil to the members of Christ, misbelievers to believers, sacrilegious to religious, in one word, Heretics to Catholics.
 
Here are two questions that I want someone to honestly answer please.

Q1. According to these verses below, in context please, what is Jesus’ attitude toward tradition here?

Mark 7:8
“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Mark 7:13
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

Q2. According this verse below, in context, is it possible for human traditions ot lead people astray?

Col 2:8
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Easy. The “traditions of men” St. Paul of Tarsus is speaking about is the traditions of pharasitical Judaism (modern day Orthodox Judaism), not Sacred Tradition itself. Note also that this verse does not prove or even imply anything close to Sola Scriptura, this theological concept came thousands of years after Judaism (a Tradition based religion) and Christianity (a Tradition based religion) had been in place.

St. Paul goes on to say in Thessalonians;
2 Thes. 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
which proves the Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts Sacred Scripture, but is derived from or compliments. Sacred Tradition cannot change, and is part of the deposit of faith, however there are disciplines (such as priestly celibacy in the Latin Church for example) which are not Sacred Traditions but are disciplines which can possibly change with time and culture. Similarly how in Paul’s day a kiss on the cheek was a sign of fraternity, but today a handshake is just as suitable in American culture.

Notice how also Mark 7:13 Jesus is speaking about your traditions, i.e. where pharasitical Judaism had erred. Not His Traditions, which is the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition.
 
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” *Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256). *

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." *Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342). *

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

“Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.” *Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344). *

“Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top