Sola Scriptura Question

[garysibio]

First let me say that I have no doubts that “sola scriptura” is a false doctrine so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me it’s wrong. I already know that.

I was listening to Chuck Swindoll on the radio today and he said something that started me thinking of sola scriptura. As I was mulling it over in my head, I came up with a question that, if I were asked, I wouldn’t know how to answer.

I know of no doctrine held by the Catholic Church that is not, at least, alluded to in Scripture. It may not be clearly defined there but it’s there in seminal form. I’ve heard Catholic apologists say that there are no Catholic doctrines that are not present in the Bible to some degree. When I talk about Catholicism with non-Catholic Christians, I stick to the Bible since it is the only thing that convinces them.

Given that why do we need Sacred Tradition?

Gary

 

[StevieD]

No Catholic belief is CONTRADICTED in scripture. If they were all definitively and clearly supported then there would have been no schism nor ‘reformation’. The interpretation of Scripture in Catholicism is reserved to the Church which has definitively and finally, spoken in matters of doctrine from the teachings of those who were taught by the Apostles and their early successors. Protestants claim that tradition has no place in Scriptural interpretation - WHAT? Then what are Calvin’s confessions (this is how I, Calvin, interpret Scriptures). The post-Apostolic and other early Church Fathers are the reliable ‘tradition’ to which we, Catholics, properly, defer. We need tradition because without it anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is as reliable as anyone else’s. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations and more founded every day. Traditional, original, Catholic interpretation is the only one upon which we can rely according Christ’s own word (“and the kingdom of hell will not prevail against it” and the promise made at the Ascension).

 

[Omyo12]

First let me say that I have no doubts that “sola scriptura” is a false doctrine so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me it’s wrong. I already know that.

I was listening to Chuck Swindoll on the radio today and he said something that started me thinking of sola scriptura. As I was mulling it over in my head, I came up with a question that, if I were asked, I wouldn’t know how to answer.

I know of no doctrine held by the Catholic Church that is not, at least, alluded to in Scripture. It may not be clearly defined there but it’s there in seminal form. I’ve heard Catholic apologists say that there are no Catholic doctrines that are not present in the Bible to some degree. When I talk about Catholicism with non-Catholic Christians, I stick to the Bible since it is the only thing that convinces them.

Given that why do we need Sacred Tradition?

Gary

Sacred Tradition are traditional interpretations of Scripture based on the beliefs of the beginnings of the Church.
For example: It is Tradition that Mary was taken up into heaven (Assumption of Mary) and this is kinda alluded to in Revelation 12. However, without Sacred Tradition it is really hard to come to this conclusion reading Scripture alone. This is why Protestants consider this doctrine “unbiblical”

The Reformists made up their own traditions based on their own interpretations and pass them down. So Lutherans today for example, follow the interpretation of Martin Luther and other Reformists and are therefore traditions of the Lutheran Church

 

[NHInsider]

Actually Scripture is one of the Traditions of the Church - without Tradition we would not know which books are inspired/authoritative.

 

[garysibio]

Actually Scripture is one of the Traditions of the Church - without Tradition we would not know which books are inspired/authoritative.

When I wrote my original question I actually had that in there but edited it out at the last moment. I understand that what you have said is technically true but most people use the term Sacred (or Apostolic) Tradition to refer to that part which was passed on orally.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Sacred Tradition are traditional interpretations of Scripture based on the beliefs of the beginnings of the Church.
For example: It is Tradition that Mary was taken up into heaven (Assumption of Mary) and this is kinda alluded to in Revelation 12. However, without Sacred Tradition it is really hard to come to this conclusion reading Scripture alone. This is why Protestants consider this doctrine “unbiblical”

The Reformists made up their own traditions based on their own interpretations and pass them down. So Lutherans today for example, follow the interpretation of Martin Luther and other Reformists and are therefore traditions of the Lutheran Church

That’s my point. If Sacred Tradition is nothing more than an interpretation of the Bible, why do we need it given that we have the Bible? An interpretation isn’t going to contain anything that isn’t in the text it’s interpreting.

I’m not sure I agree with your definition of Sacred Tradition. I’ve always believed it to be the sum total of all that Jesus taught the apostles and which they passed on to us, in other words, public revelation.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

No Catholic belief is CONTRADICTED in scripture. If they were all definitively and clearly supported then there would have been no schism nor ‘reformation’. The interpretation of Scripture in Catholicism is reserved to the Church which has definitively and finally, spoken in matters of doctrine from the teachings of those who were taught by the Apostles and their early successors. Protestants claim that tradition has no place in Scriptural interpretation - WHAT? Then what are Calvin’s confessions (this is how I, Calvin, interpret Scriptures). The post-Apostolic and other early Church Fathers are the reliable ‘tradition’ to which we, Catholics, properly, defer. We need tradition because without it anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is as reliable as anyone else’s. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations and more founded every day. Traditional, original, Catholic interpretation is the only one upon which we can rely according Christ’s own word (“and the kingdom of hell will not prevail against it” and the promise made at the Ascension).

While it’s a given that no Catholic doctrine is contradicted by aScripture, there is also a school of thought that says that every Catholic doctrine is also present in Scripture in, at least, seminal form. Can you give me an example of a Catholic doctrine that doesn’t have at least some basis in Scripture?

Gary

 

[tobinatorstark]

First let me say that I have no doubts that “sola scriptura” is a false doctrine so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me it’s wrong. I already know that.

I was listening to Chuck Swindoll on the radio today and he said something that started me thinking of sola scriptura. As I was mulling it over in my head, I came up with a question that, if I were asked, I wouldn’t know how to answer.

I know of no doctrine held by the Catholic Church that is not, at least, alluded to in Scripture. It may not be clearly defined there but it’s there in seminal form. I’ve heard Catholic apologists say that there are no Catholic doctrines that are not present in the Bible to some degree. When I talk about Catholicism with non-Catholic Christians, I stick to the Bible since it is the only thing that convinces them.

Given that why do we need Sacred Tradition?

Gary

2nd Thessalonians 14 Douay-Rheims

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 14. Traditions,…whether by word,[10] or by our epistle. Therefore, says St. Chrysostom, the apostle did not deliver all things that were to be believed, by writing; (Witham) but many things by word of mouth only, which have been perpetuated by tradition, and these traditions, no less than the writings of the apostles, are deserving of faith. Omoios de kakeina, kai tauta estin axiopista. (St. Chrysostom, on this place)

I think you know what is right and wrong. I think this might help you clear up anything you have question on

 

[Erich]

From Disunity on Essentials (emphasis mine):

Catholic apologists commonly point out the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought. Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

 

[Erich]

Given that why do we need Sacred Tradition?

I suppose you could say that Scripture without Tradition (kind of an oxymoron in itself, as someone else noted above) is kinda like a textbook without footnotes, appendices, and references.

 

[Cashue]

The bottom line is that God inspired the bible but by itself the man of god cannot be “completely equipped” it was, if you like incomplete. God then inspired other men over the centuries to add traditions that were not clear in the bible.

 

[Spirithound]

I understand that what you have said is technically true but most people use the term Sacred (or Apostolic) Tradition to refer to that part which was passed on orally.

Not a whole lot is passed down orally nowadays, so I think we should include non-Biblical written teachings also. This would include the Bible’s table of contents.

That’s my point. If Sacred Tradition is nothing more than an interpretation of the Bible, why do we need it given that we have the Bible? An interpretation isn’t going to contain anything that isn’t in the text it’s interpreting.

An interpretation is an interpretation, and it’s what keeps us from interpreting heresy into our beliefs.

 

[StevieD]

While it’s a given that no Catholic doctrine is contradicted by aScripture, there is also a school of thought that says that every Catholic doctrine is also present in Scripture in, at least, seminal form. Can you give me an example of a Catholic doctrine that doesn’t have at least some basis in Scripture?

Gary

No I can’t.

 

[estesbob]

Church Doctrine is supportd by three legs- Scripture,Tradition and the teachings of the Magestrium Unless a doctrine is suppoerted by all htree it is not correct.

Sola Sciptura has many ffatal flaws the largest being it is not supported by Scripture itself and it depends on personal interpretation of Scripture says. Without Tradition and the The Teachings of th Magestrium what we call the Bible today would not exist in its present form.

 

[Mintaka]

Given that all potential English words* are alluded to by the alphabet, in that you have only to combine letters in a certain way to get them all, why do we need dictionaries? Why do we need an oral language at all, now that we have an alphabet and a writing system?

Sola scriptura is like going forth into the world armed only with the alphabet, without no knowledge of spelling or what sounds the letters represent. Everybody is going to come up with different ideas, many of them not mutually intelligible. And everybody is going to disbelieve the people who actually understand how to read and write and spell, who insist that the alphabet is connected with the sounds of ordinary speech (sometimes in very non-obvious ways), and who claim that speech came before the alphabet and continues to have power over it in many ways.

• At least all potential English words using typical English-language phonemes as we know them, to date.

 

[Nino]

well,first ,did the early conversions to Christianity read about it in the local papers or what…how did they know of Jesus and what HE wanted us to do? When was the printing press invented…in the 1500s I think…until then it was mostly Irish monks who labored nite and day for years to reproduce by hand the writings of the church fathers…so this is hardly the way a god would leave His church…so tradition,word of mouth…teaching as in a classroom and living by example…that did it…plus miracles when needed and walla,we have the only 2000 year old church still on the job…after all if Jesus had wanted to leave His teachings behind he would simply have invented the printing press and of the booklets would go…no He left a magic chair in Rome and whomever sat in that chair spoke for Him…after all words change…‘person’,‘gay’,square’ etc etc…N (the three words used to mean…all humans now changed to exclude developing babies…‘gay’ meant a happy person and ‘square’ meant fair and honest…see boys and girls…imagine how cold and wet and miserable it would really be if not for earth warming…figure that tongue in cheek out…

 

[eric51]

It has recently been brought home to me how fundamentally astray many of our protestant and non-denominational friends are. I joined a “christian” chat group, and went out of my way not to proselytize or advocate for any one Church. However, when I responded to threads on topics like Sola Scriptura, infant baptism, Sola Fide, Communion, I was so severely castigated for my responses, that in a matter of 2 weeks I was permanently banned from the group! The reason posited was “Catholic Heresy”, though I never identified myself as a Catholic and structured my posts so as not to advertise myself as such.

I am truly appalled by the content of beliefs out there. I realize this is an age of “ecumenism”, but by even the most liberal and compassionate measure of “bare christianity”, a very large segment of self-professed “christians” simply do not measure up to that bar.

In Christ

 

[inkaneer]

… I know of no doctrine held by the Catholic Church that is not, at least, alluded to in Scripture. It may not be clearly defined there but it’s there in seminal form. I’ve heard Catholic apologists say that there are no Catholic doctrines that are not present in the Bible to some degree. When I talk about Catholicism with non-Catholic Christians, I stick to the Bible since it is the only thing that convinces them.

Given that why do we need Sacred Tradition?

Gary

Because one of the tests for a writing to be included in the canon of scripture was whether it supported Sacred tradition. Therefore scripture must be interpreted in accord with Sacred Tradition. Paul told the Thessalonians that they were to hold onto both the written as well as the Oral Traditions they received [2 Thess 2:15]. To interpret scripture without the light of Sacred Tradition as in sola scriptura is what has led to the fracturing of protestantism. Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary, a noted and respected protestant institution estimates there are over 40,000 protestant denominations currently in the world. That is the result of the sola scriptura method of biblical interpretation without Sacred Tradition. One more thing here. Did you ever notice how the protestants, by employing sola scriptura, are always reinventing the wheel so to speak when it comes to doctrine? Take Baptism as a prime example. The orginal “Reformers” of the 16th century believed it to be a sacrament and necessary for salvation for everyone including infants. In the seventeenth century infant baptism was dropped in favor of “believers baptism”. In the eighteenth century baptism became an ordinance not a sacrament. In the nineteenth century Baptism no longer saved and was just a mere symbol and in the 20th century baptism is not only not necessary but bible verses such as the ending to Marks gospel [Mark 16:9-20] are claimed to be not inspired all because of one verse that links baptism with salvation [Mark 16:16]. The Eucharist is another example. Transubstatiation became consubstantiatiuon and then just a “symbol”. Most modern protestant denominations today don’t even bother with a communion service. After all if it is only a symbol [as is baptism] why bother? And with each succeeding generation of protestantism more and more doctrine is lost and more and more apostasy is gained.

 

[Rev_Kev]

Protestants claim that tradition has no place in Scriptural interpretation - WHAT?

That is simply not true. While there are some branches of Protestant Christianity that are fundamentalist who claim to reject any kind of tradition but they are simply blind to their own traditions.

There are also many Protestants who give tradition a significant place, especially Wesleyan Protestants. Wesleyans look to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to ascertain true doctrine; with scripture having the dominant place.

Everyone has traditions and everyone has some form of “magisterium” or church authority. In my denomination we have an elected convention that meets every 4 years to refine the teaching and the doctrine of the church. When I joined the church I bound myself to the decisions and teachings of that General Assembly. Even a non-denominational independent church will have at the very least a pastor that decides what that group will teach and believe.

The fundamental difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants is not whether or not we believe in tradition and scripture, but how much weight is given to scripture over against tradition. For Protestants any doctrine would need strong biblical support while for Catholics the biblical support does not seem (to this outside observer) to be nearly as important as the tradition and magisterium. We Protestants also tend to reject the infallibility of the magisterium.

When we speak as Protestants on agreeing on the “essentials” and disagreeing on “non-essentials” what that means is that we pretty much all agree on the ancient creeds as the foundation of our faith. We all agree that we need Jesus Christ to save us and that apart from his redemptive work on the cross we would all be lost. We all need the Holy Spirit to guide us into sanctification and we all need to live for God. Those are essential and all Christians everywhere (Catholic or otherwise) pretty much agree on them.

 

[inkaneer]

That is simply not true. While there are some branches of Protestant Christianity that are fundamentalist who claim to reject any kind of tradition but they are simply blind to their own traditions.

Regarding your first paragraph, this is where protestants differ from the early church. The early church operated on Sacred Tradition as passed down by the Apostolic Succession of the Church heirarchy. Any number of early church writers can and do atest to this. The Written Tradition came into existence only after and even then it was not until a period of 300 years had gone by that there was agreement on which writings were inspired. Athanasius in 348 AD was the very first one to list the 27 writings we have today in the NT. Until then churches in different locales had their own canons which excluded some inerrant writings and included other writings that were not inerrant. Yet doctrinally the church remained intact because the Written Tradition was not the one relied on rather it was the Oral Tradition.

There are also many Protestants who give tradition a significant place, especially Wesleyan Protestants. Wesleyans look to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to ascertain true doctrine; with scripture having the dominant place…

As for your second paragraph I agree that protestants follow a tradition whether they claim to or not. The problem is that they follow a man made tradition that Jesus warned about in the gospel. There is a huge difference between tradition [small letter “t”] and Tradition [capital letter “T”]. The Tradition with the capital letter refers to the teaching of the Apostles as passed on to their successors. It was very important in the early church to ascertain the pedigree of anyone who sought to teach. That pedigree had to be an unbroken chain and have an Apostle as the originator of the lineage as Irenaeus in 189 AD states:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Every Catholic Orthodox and Coptic Bishop can show his pedigree as to who ordained him as a bishop and who ordained that bishop and so on thru th egenerations all the way back to an Apostle. Apostolic Succession was important in the early church and it still is today. Protestants can not do this. First of all when the protestants broke from the church many priests and nuns did also. However, no bishop did. Church authority is centered in the bishops as these are the successors to the Apostles not priests deacons or nuns. As for the Anglican communion there were bishops in England who did break but the Anglican communion subsequently radically altered their ordination rites so as to
make them “null and void”. They later change them back but the lapse of time between the two dates was more than a lifetime so that there were no persons with valid Apostolic Succession alive when the change back was made. In effect Apostolic Successsion died out in Anglicanism.

When we speak as Protestants on agreeing on the “essentials” and disagreeing on “non-essentials” what that means is that we pretty much all agree on the ancient creeds as the foundation of our faith. We all agree that we need Jesus Christ to save us and that apart from his redemptive work on the cross we would all be lost. We all need the Holy Spirit to guide us into sanctification and we all need to live for God. Those are essential and all Christians everywhere (Catholic or otherwise) pretty much agree on them.

As for your third paragraph I don’t know what you regard as “essentials” but I would think the line in the Nicene Creed of “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;” would be considered an “essential” even by your own definition. Yet there are protestant denominations that not only deny that baptism remits sin but deny it is even necessary. Yes we all agree that we are saved by Jesus salvific death on the cross. But what is not agreed on is how that is applied to us. Do we go with the early church or do we base our salvation on the beliefs of 16th century and later men?