Sola Scriptura quesiton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jenny35
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Basically we cannot be sure who to trust when oral tradition goes too far. I believe it was John of Damascus who admitted there was no written practice of using icons but it has been an oral tradition handed down.

When such is the case we can have multiple Apostolic Church’s that make the same claim that they are right in their traditions not found in Scripture. Rome isn’t the only Catholic Church that believes in tradition, there are others and some have come to different conclusions.

… there’s just too many traditions.
You can’t isolate tradition anymore than you can isolate Scripture. Both rely on a living Magisterium (which relies on them). The Magisterium decided which of the countless ancient traditions were crucial and reliable - “Tradition”. Scholars and bishops in union with the pope determined which ancient books would constitute the “New Testament”. The Magisterium later declared the canon “closed”. Gospels, epistles, etc that were not endorsed by the Magisterium as Scripture, were excluded from Scripture, even if a majority of Christians and scholars considered them inspired at one time or another.

The Magisterium of 2013 continues to exclude from Scripture the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and countless other books now heavily promoted, even incorporated in some new bibles. The Magisterium continues to include some of Paul’s letters that are being dropped in some bibles. We may see the day when those who follow the Magisterium’s traditional 27 books in the NT are labeled a reactionary minority.
 
But you do the very same still. Instead of your pastor telling you what to believe, you now allow the RCC to do so. 🤷
On matters of faith and morals, I, too, “allow” Jesus to tell me what to believe through His Church and the Magisterium. Truth - it’s a beautiful thing!
 
Agreed - Oral tradition can be tough - especially where one is sure if it is being taught as “Doctrine” (even bordering on dogma) or if it is taught as practice and pious devotion.
In many of these things and discussions I think of Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 10:23-24
All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.
We know how Paul viewed the need to keep of the Mosaic law. The above puts it rather bluntly. He is saying that we are not bound by the letter of such law. He goes on to speak, using food offered to idols as an example, of a higher consideration which is our Love for God and our concern for our neighbor. In short - our duty to uphold in our hearts, the two great commandments (Mt 22:36-40)

I often think that many of our discussions here about “traditional” things tend to turn around this idea of all things being lawful but not all things building up.

Just some thoughts

Peace
James
Excellent point, thank you.
 
But you do the very same still. Instead of your pastor telling you what to believe, you now allow the RCC to do so. 🤷
Since the Catholic Church decided what was canon scripture and what was not, is there any effort among Protestants to look at apocryphal writings as scripture? If St. Thomas and St. Philip wrote religious pieces touching on Jesus, why are they not also used in Protestant teachings? What kind of treatment do the writings of Arius and the Gnostics receive among Protestants?
 
Since the Catholic Church decided what was canon scripture and what was not, is there any effort among Protestants to look at apocryphal writings as scripture? If St. Thomas and St. Philip wrote religious pieces touching on Jesus, why are they not also used in Protestant teachings? What kind of treatment do the writings of Arius and the Gnostics receive among Protestants?
We basically reject anything that came after the first century, so your best argument would be the Gospel of Thomas and the Didache.

Thomas is obviously a Gnostic writing and did not come from him, and the Didache is awesome; no clue why it was rejected, and I encourage others to read it.
 
Since the Bible is a very old collection of writings, some of its themes are not nearly as relevant to today’s world to be able to serve as useful guides. If a religion does not serve the current needs of people, it can lose its value and fall out of favor. This is supposed to have happened with Zoroastrianism.

When Islam was started, Muhammad’s major concern was to draw people together and discourage competition. Egalitarian goals were emphasized. However, after Muhammad’s death, power vacuums developed in which arguments started as to what Islam should be. The first four caliphs had trouble pacifying dissidents and three were assassinated. There were even two civil wars.

To eliminate all this squabbling, after the Abassid’s gained power, they promptly murdered all opponents. This was a very practical solution and resulted in the greatest flowering of the Islamic Empire. Once fighting was brutally quelled by the Abassid army of Persian soldiers, the running of the empire took center stage, and egalitarianism was ignored. In other words, the Koran and the ahadith took a back seat to practical matters. One could argue that the Islamic Empire was no longer Islamic because of the de-emphasis of the Koran and Muhammad. However, unity of the elements of the empire, one of the key goals of Muhammad, was a great success until the empire became too unwieldy to be ruled from a central capital, after which it started to fall apart as local potentates usurped power from the emperor. In the case of the Catholics, running an empire was secondary in importance, and was overshadowed by enhancement of the power of the Church in whatever political entities existed.

Many Jews believe in personal revelation of God’s word, so that total reliance on the Jewish Tanakh and oral tradition is not taught. By doing this, Judaism is flexible and better able to serve the needs of its adherents. This is the great disadvantage of Sola Scriptura. On the other hand, the Catholic Church can and does change its teachings according to the wishes and needs of its adherents, and these changes are often not supported by the Bible.
 
A very interesting post. Thank you for sharing this. Couple of thoughts…
Since the Bible is a very old collection of writings, some of its themes are not nearly as relevant to today’s world to be able to serve as useful guides. If a religion does not serve the current needs of people, it can lose its value and fall out of favor. This is supposed to have happened with Zoroastrianism.
Not sure what “themes” you might be referring to but I do agree that if Christ were walking among us today he would likely structure his parables differently.
However - there still are many societies and cultures in the world where the parables, as written, are very applicable.
Likewise - most places no longer have absolute monarchs so perhaps this is a theme that is not as applicable, and yet there still exists despots and dictators etc.
So I guess what I am saying is that I don’t see any NT themes that are not applicable to today.
When Islam was started, Muhammad’s major concern was to draw people together and discourage competition. Egalitarian goals were emphasized. However, after Muhammad’s death, power vacuums developed in which arguments started as to what Islam should be. The first four caliphs had trouble pacifying dissidents and three were assassinated. There were even two civil wars.
To eliminate all this squabbling, after the Abassid’s gained power, they promptly murdered all opponents. This was a very practical solution and resulted in the greatest flowering of the Islamic Empire. Once fighting was brutally quelled by the Abassid army of Persian soldiers, the running of the empire took center stage, and egalitarianism was ignored. In other words, the Koran and the ahadith took a back seat to practical matters. One could argue that the Islamic Empire was no longer Islamic because of the de-emphasis of the Koran and Muhammad. However, unity of the elements of the empire, one of the key goals of Muhammad, was a great success until the empire became too unwieldy to be ruled from a central capital, after which it started to fall apart as local potentates usurped power from the emperor. In the case of the Catholics, running an empire was secondary in importance, and was overshadowed by enhancement of the power of the Church in whatever political entities existed.
While I’m sure there is much room for argument in the above, I liked reading it. It really presents and summarizes something that I have long held in regards to the problems of the Papal office holding both spiritual and governmental authority. The conflicts and temptations inherent in such an arrangement have caused problems that we are still dealing with today.
Many Jews believe in personal revelation of God’s word, so that total reliance on the Jewish Tanakh and oral tradition is not taught. By doing this, Judaism is flexible and better able to serve the needs of its adherents. This is the great disadvantage of Sola Scriptura. On the other hand, the Catholic Church can and does change its teachings according to the wishes and needs of its adherents, and these changes are often not supported by the Bible.
Not quite understanding this…Did you mean great “advantage” of Sola Scriptura?
As to the Church changing it’s teachings and whether those teachings are (or indeed need to be) supported by Scripture - or to what extent - That could be the subject of many many threads - and has been. 😃

As to the matter of “personal revelation from God’s word”…Is it your understanding that the Catholic Church does not believe in this idea? If so, allow me to state that this is not the case. The Church DOES believe in personal revelation. What it does not agree with (and is supported by Scripture) is personal revelation (interpretation) in a vacuum.

Something that troubles me about what you are saying here is that in the beginning of your post you assert that the Bible, because of it’s outdated themes etc., runs the risk of “losing it’s value” and “fall(ing) out of favor”, like other faiths before it. Then at the end of your post you assert that the Catholic Church changes it’s teachings in ways not supported by (your understanding of) Scripture.

I dunno - must be too early for me to really collect my thoughts here. I guess it comes down to this…On the one hand you seem to be concerned about keeping the bible relevant and on the other you are concerned that teachings relevant to current circumstances are not supported by the bible…

What biblical themes do you see as not relevant to guide us today…and what teachings of the Church do you see as not, at least thematically, supported by Scripture?

Peace
James
 
Originally Posted by nmgauss View Post
“Since the Catholic Church decided what was canon scripture and what was not, is there any effort among Protestants to look at apocryphal writings as scripture? If St. Thomas and St. Philip wrote religious pieces touching on Jesus, why are they not also used in Protestant teachings? What kind of treatment do the writings of Arius and the Gnostics receive among Protestants?”
We basically reject anything that came after the first century, so your best argument would be the Gospel of Thomas and the Didache.

Thomas is obviously a Gnostic writing and did not come from him, and the Didache is awesome; no clue why it was rejected, and I encourage others to read it.
I can’t see a particular reason for a cutoff at 100 AD, for instance. Scholars have changed their opinions wildly over the age of particular works. God could inspire a holy work in 200 AD, and a heretical work might be written in 60 AD. Even if a work is now labeled as obviously gnostic, so what? The Gnostics didn’t claim to be heretics, they claimed to be Christian. The Catholics (Christians in union with the Pope) were one movement, the Gnostics were another Christian movement, and there were a few more, each with their own theology, and their own canon of scriptures, which overlapped with the Catholic canon. In hindsight, it’s not obvious to all that the right canon was chosen. A Christian who rejects the Magisterium today is not bound to the Magisterium’s canon; he could choose to identify the Gospel of Mary, for instance, as “scripture for me”. He might decide that Philemon is “not scripture for me”.

A few liberal Protestant denominations are now gradually introducing some of the “other” scriptures into church services and other programs. This will spread. Refer to the book “A New New Testament”, especially, look at some of the church leaders who helped put it together.
 
the Catholic Church can and does change its teachings according to the wishes and needs of its adherents, and these changes are often not supported by the Bible.
Two quite inflammatory statements, there! 😉

You can certainly demonstrate the development of doctrine (after all, the doctrine of Christ’s divinity and humanity was established through a process of development, as was the doctrine of the Trinity). But, can you demonstrate that the doctrinal developments found in Church history have occurred “according to the wishes and needs” of the Catholic faithful, or that they “are… not supported by the Bible?” I would assert that you cannot – and Catholics would certainly not see it the way you paint it!
 
Two quite inflammatory statements, there! 😉

You can certainly demonstrate the development of doctrine (after all, the doctrine of Christ’s divinity and humanity was established through a process of development, as was the doctrine of the Trinity). But, can you demonstrate that the doctrinal developments found in Church history have occurred “according to the wishes and needs” of the Catholic faithful, or that they “are… not supported by the Bible?” I would assert that you cannot – and Catholics would certainly not see it the way you paint it!
See the following which is a long list of Catholic practices not supported by the Bible:

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
 
See the following which is a long list of Catholic practices not supported by the Bible:
It would appear that you adhere to the heritic, Martin Luther, & his theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”)? ie. “Anything outside the Bible is unnecessary, non-authoritative.”
Please point out chapter and verse to prove “sola scriptura”

It must be in the Bible or it is not sound doctrine (according to the doctrine of sola scriptura).
 
It would appear that you adhere to the heritic, Martin Luther, & his theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”)? ie. “Anything outside the Bible is unnecessary, non-authoritative.”
Please point out chapter and verse to prove “sola scriptura”

It must be in the Bible or it is not sound doctrine (according to the doctrine of sola scriptura).
Heresy is an offense defined by the Church. If not defined outside the Church it is not heresy.

Asking for the Bible to support Sola Scriptura is like interpreting the Pentateuch as being written entirely by Moses even thought his own death is recorded there after he died. Only a non-Biblical source could espouse Sola Scriptura.

I am not taking sides here. My point is to justify Martin Luther’s rejection of several of the Church’s practices and tenets when not supported by the Bible. The Church was judged to have abused its position as infallible and had taken so many liberties and engaged in so many distortions in teaching what it considers the “Truth” that they had developed themselves into a target ripe for revolution. Here Christianity became split along Church authority lines, and a significant portion of the adherents supported the split.
 
See the following which is a long list of Catholic practices not supported by the Bible:

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
It would be nicer if this list actually made sense…but it contains the same sorts of BS that we see regularly here.

Just taking the first ones…
  1. Prayers for the dead…are supported in Scripture - in Maccabees. Of course this author would know this if the Protestants hadn’t removed Maccabees. 🤷
  2. Sign of the cross. I’d love to hear how this practice (not doctrine or dogma) is “heretical”
  3. Wax Candles??? Really??? Wax Candles are heretical???
  4. Veneration of Angels and dead saints…Veneration is not worship it is holding someone in high regard. How is this heretical? Then, as regards “dead saints”…There is no such thing as a dead saint. Read Mt 22:32 and John 11:25-26. He is the God of the Living not of the dead - there are no “dead” saints.
  5. Worship of Mary - I challenge any person to show where the Church teaches that Mary is to be worshiped. The Catechism is on line HERE and other Church documents are also readily available. Please demonstrate where the worship of Mary is taught…
I could go on - each of the things listed can be easily refuted. Some are so silly that they hardly deserve refutation…I mean come on - - clergy dressing differently is a heresy???

nuff said…

Your earlier post seemed a good place to build a conversation from…but the linked list is just a bad joke.

Peace
James
 
It would be nicer if this list actually made sense…but it contains the same sorts of BS that we see regularly here.

Just taking the first ones…
  1. Prayers for the dead…are supported in Scripture - in Maccabees. Of course this author would know this if the Protestants hadn’t removed Maccabees. 🤷
  2. Sign of the cross. I’d love to hear how this practice (not doctrine or dogma) is “heretical”
  3. Wax Candles??? Really??? Wax Candles are heretical???
  4. Veneration of Angels and dead saints…Veneration is not worship it is holding someone in high regard. How is this heretical? Then, as regards “dead saints”…There is no such thing as a dead saint. Read Mt 22:32 and John 11:25-26. He is the God of the Living not of the dead - there are no “dead” saints.
  5. Worship of Mary - I challenge any person to show where the Church teaches that Mary is to be worshiped. The Catechism is on line HERE and other Church documents are also readily available. Please demonstrate where the worship of Mary is taught…
I could go on - each of the things listed can be easily refuted. Some are so silly that they hardly deserve refutation…I mean come on - - clergy dressing differently is a heresy???

nuff said…

Your earlier post seemed a good place to build a conversation from…but the linked list is just a bad joke.

Peace
James
I guess even this Episcopalian is a heretic :eek:
 
My point is to justify Martin Luther’s rejection of several of the Church’s practices and tenets when not supported by the Bible
.
So, you are saying that “sola scriptura” cannot be supported by Scripture, is that right?
 
See the following which is a long list of Catholic practices not supported by the Bible:
I will answer these as they pertain to Luther

Prayers for the dead, :uther certainly discouraged this as a practice to shorten time in purgatory but he clearly believed in the Coimmunion of Saints and the Blessed Virgin.

Wax Candles introduced in church ← I have no idea what this is about. The Lutheran Church burns candles and censers to this day.

Veneration of angels and dead saints, define veneration

The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted Lutherans held the Mass as a daily need and complained the Latin Rite was not doing it enough in the 16th C

The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, “Mother of God”, as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus You are misunderstanding what “Mother of God” means and Luther absolutely believed this.

Priests began to dress differently from the laity, Huh? Lutheran priest dress this way to emphasize they are sinners (black) covered by grace (the robes) just like the rest of us.

Extreme Unction You don’t pray for the sick?

The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great 2Corinthians. Luther had no problem with the doctrine he just didn’t like selling indulgences.

The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. The 95 Theses were printed in Latin to discourage the laity from reading them . It was Luther’s students who printed them in German.

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9). So missionaries are not to pray for indigenous peoples.

The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church. Luther did not much care for the rosary but the Agnus Dei, Nunc Dimitus, Magnificat, etc are all still prayed in the Lutheran Church.

The Papacy is of pagan origin. What? The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. The title Pontifex Maximus is given to leader of the religious in Rome. It was a pagan title, but many Christianized things began as pagan, shall we discard them all?

The kissing of the Pope’s feet Kissing feet is a sign of love.

The Temporal power of the Popes Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. You’re wrong about this. Jesus declared Himself to be King and readily accepted worship. He just said His Kingdom was not like the Kingdoms of men.

Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. No one worships the cross. And if any image is idolatry do you have pictures of your family? And what about the images in the Temple of angels and pomegranates? You misunderstand this commandment which was not part of the decalogue until Calvin changed it because he hated icons.

Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized This is water used for baptism. It is dipped into and crosse dwith to remind us that we are baptized into Christ.

The veneration of St. Joseph began You have a problem with St Joseph?

The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV Huh?

Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2). You misunderstand what a saint is. Was Jesus wrong to quote Daniel, Moses, Elijah and compare Himself to Abraham. We recognize the greats of the faith. You do this too by printing this list which comes from the teaching of Calvin. So do you venerate him?

Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3). 998 Now you are saying pious practices like fasting are bad. Jesus did not. He merely said fasting does not make you righteous. And when you fast (see He actually says to do it) don’t make a show of it.

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord’s Supper. (Read Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14). Luther plainly taught that the Body and Blood of the Lord are present in the Mass. For this Calvin called him heretic. This is a doctrine believed by Catholics the world over who swear no fealty to the pope. You are out on a limb here. And as far a resacrificing thing goes, that is not specifically true, the Latin Rite teaches they offer Christ but not that they sacrifice Christ. Language is important.

The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079 I agree with you on this one.

The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans You’re wrong about this, the rosary is much more ancient that the 11th century as are prayer beads. Luther prayed the rosary but taught it was not a work of satisfaction.

continued
 
The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). Nope you’re wrong about this one too. When Christ says do not pray repetitiously what the Greek says is don’t babble. (Like some ecstatic/charismatic churches do in fact) And to not repeat yourself is silly when the Lord says, “When you pray, say Our Father…” Religion is the right practice repeated to teach us what God has done. This is a silly argument born out of ignorance of the Greek created by the King James folks who deliberately misinterpreted the Bible to try to scare people away from praying the Lord’s Prayer and their Rosary.

The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion The Inquisition began as a teaching office and was abused, but its purpose was not force. And remember those people who began the Inquisition actually believed that people who did not confess Christ went to Hell.

The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin. Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190 I agree selling indulgences is wrong, and Rome never sanctioned the sale of indulgences. Trent specifically condemns it.

The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord’s Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord’s Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; 1st Corinthians 11:26). Once again there is no “spiritual presence” whoever wrote this is presuming to correct the Lord and assuming He fumbled His words. I also disagree with TS but the Mass is NOT a commemoration. When the Lord said, “This is my body,” He did not say “This si like my body,” and it is laughable that pious protectants take it upon themselves to correct Him. Who do you think you are?

Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). Confess your sins to God and one another, and Christ commands the Church to forgive sins. Or are you again presuming to correct the Lord.

The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). In the bread is the Body of the Lord. We are not worshiping bread, we are bowing the presence of God.

The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). There is no command in John 5 for everyone to read the Bible, Jesus is chastising the Pharisees for studying the Bible but not seeing Him. This no command at all. You are making this up out of thin air. 1Timothy is written from an Apostle to a Bishop, and once again is not a command for everyone to read the Bible, again thin air. But you should know the reason Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) was because Latin was the common (Vulgar) language. So the Church was actually trying to read the Bible to people so they could understand it. The notion the Church hid the Bible away ignores the facts that books were incredibly rare and so expensive that they could be afforded by kings and the Church and a lot of the Laity didn’t read anyway.

I am going to stop the point by point because this already over long but I want to say one more thing.

This entire thing, like pretty much every other evangelical critique of Rome pretends that Christianity began around 1850. It ignores history time and place and circumstance and acts as though the absence of modern convenience and communication is a fault of Rome and is impiety on her part. It displays and ignorance of history and Scripture that smacks of a spoiled child who dislikes the facts and so makes them up to suit himself. You should really read the history for yourself because it is rich and full and rewarding and worth the time.

God Bless
 
Posted by a Lutheran, Insult me again!
I am familiar with that webpage, but I was not replying to you. I was replying to nmguass and his accusations of Latin Rite “Heresy” when it was plain that whoever had written the list knew little about history and Luther.

I just thought it was ironic so I was pointing out the irony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top