sola scriptura

[KathleenGee]

Again, without tradition – meaning how faith was practiced and developed, you will never find the answer.

We cannot look to Scripture alone.

Because Scripture was intended to be connected to its believers.

I am a cradle Catholic. I never studied Bible in itself. The best place I have found to learn Scripture is at Mass, especially daily Mass at my parish because it is very community oriented, we openly share after the priest’s homily and then he comments and directs our reflections to the intent of the Scriptural readings for the day.

Traverse, I would advise you to get a copy of Pope Benedict’s daily reflections, ‘Benedictus’. You can get a copy from Amazon.com for around $6 or so used, and mine I have gotten for friends are in excellent condition.

Then you take the diary and go to Leonardo DeFillipis’ webpage, www.stlukeproductions.com and then click Benedictus … Today:. Here you will hear Leonardo read the reflection for today. You can go back or forward on his site to hear all the readings.

What P. Benedict does is essentially teach you the nature and mission of the Church, and how we relate to our faith in the Church. You can read the diary by text form.

Or if you hear it orally, which is our tradition, through a person and not our private interpretation, the writings become alive, penetrating and illuminating. You will experience first hand a pope teaching you.

How wonderful modern communications are when used properly!

Catholics are based on the Oral Tradition not private text interpretation which in itself is isolating.

Christian faith comes alive to us through people of faith, not book form.

 

[KathleenGee]

One can say the next step after the New Testament is the Living Sacrament of the Church.

We do not believe in the Word of God in book form.

We believe in Logos…The Word of God Became Man.

We relate to Scripture through Personhood of the Holy Trinity in living relationship through the communion of the Church.

This is opposite of how Protestants, when bounded by denominationalism in Sola Scriptura relate to God 's Word.

 

[JonNC]

Does Jesus use His church (as opposed to any one person) as a channel to transmit and safeguard the deposit of faith so that each and every generation (not just the 1st, 4th, 15th century generations) can have access to the deposit of faith. After all Jesus said: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

That is what the Church is for; to preach the word and administer the sacraments.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I used to wonder, long ago, does the following still apply: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth (sacred tradition) or by letter (sacred scripture) "?

Sure, it should. We have to understand, however, that by word of mouth in that time more than likely referrs to what eventually was written down. That’s not to say everything was written down, but certainly, if guided by the Spirit, the most important things probably were.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not talking about differences in scripture interpretation but differences in sacred tradition.

What differences are there? The only one I know is that of papal supremacy.

Plus doesn’t the orthodox church have a different canon?

Well, there is no “orthodox church”–whose canon are you referring to, for do not these have differing opinions: Albanian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Montenegrin Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox?

 

[joe370]

That is what the Church is for; to preach the word and administer the sacraments.

Jon

Of course. :thumbsup:Every church regardless of denomination (even those that do not exist - yet, preach the word of God. However, as per the Holy Bible, Jesus established one church (of course each person must find that church on their own, be it catholic or non-catholic, based on their own reasons, intuition etc.). Regarding that one church (I will build my church - not churches) the question I had to ask myself was: does Jesus continue to use His one established church (as He did prior to the schism) as a channel to transmit and safeguard the deposit of faith aka knowable doctrinal truth so that each and every generation, until His return, can have access to it. My conclusion, after months of pondering…was yes. The next step was: find His church. I think I made the right decision, especially after a conversation I had with a EO friend of mine last night. He told me that Eastern Orthodoxy embraces the notion that only Mary is in heaven because only Mary possesses her glorified body i.e. no other human soul has passed through the pearly gates. To me that is too much…That is akin to the evangelical way of thinking e.g. my sister, minus the Mary part of course.

 

[joe370]

Sure, it should. We have to understand, however, that by word of mouth in that time more than likely referrs to what eventually was written down. That’s not to say everything was written down, but certainly, if guided by the Spirit, the most important things probably were.

Jon

Agreed. Also, if Jesus’ church leadership continues to be ineffably guided by the Holy Spirit, until the end of time, (as was the case for a thousand years) then doctrinal truth not committed to scripture e.g. the assumption of Mary, can also be trusted, equally, as the word of God. Maybe? I would believe the same thing about sola scriptura if in fact the CC embraced this tradition not found in scripture. Not to sound too presumptuous; you know me…I simply cannot find it anywhere in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

That is a fair assertion. Please show me how it is a falsehood.

It is a falsehood because no where in Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, does it ever say that all of God’s Word was contained in the Bible.

You just heard a man profess this, who heard another man profess this, who heard another man profess this, but no one ever read it in a single page of the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

What does sacred tradition provide that scripture does not?

Tradition tells us this:

• The canon of Scripture
• The canon of Scripture is closed
• Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle
• The canon of Scripture is inerrant

None of the above is proclaimed in the Bible, but you believe each of those truths, yes?

 

[joe370]

Tradition tells us this:

• The canon of Scripture
• The canon of Scripture is closed
• Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle
• The canon of Scripture is inerrant

None of the above is proclaimed in the Bible, but you believe each of those truths, yes?

:yup:

 

[PRmerger]

I’m asking why when scripture (and from what I’ve read of the ecfs) tradition show celebration of Mass on only the first day of the week. It was question and nothing more, and I never really got an answer.

The answer was given: to fulfill the prophecy in Malachi 1:11.

Do you see any other place where a “pure offering” is made from the rising of the sun to its setting?

The only place I know is in the altars of the Catholic Church throughout the world.

And using your paradigm of why your church does something when the Scripture shows something else, I ask you: why does your church perform outside weddings? Or, for that matter, weddings in church? Where is that in Scripture?

And why does your church have Wednesday evening Bible studies? Where is that in Scripture?

And why do you fold your hands when praying? Where is that in Scripture?

And why does your church have a cross on its steeple? Where is that in Scripture? And, for that matter, where’s a steeple in Scripture?

 

[joe370]

. It was question and nothing more, and I never really got an answer.

Do a quick google search and you will have your answer. Also, Christmas was not celbrated on the 25th until much later. Why does it matter, regarding both…? Just curious.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe you just missed the post I made about it. I’m not talking about any scripture from 1 Corinthians 14.

Back in post 847…

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

Emphasis mine of course.

No, we didn’t “miss” the Scripture. We are saying that your way of interpreting it, as if these gifts will only exist temporarily in the Church, is wrong. Jesus gave these gifts to the Church, to help the Church to grow unit He comes again. He is the “perfect”, and when He comes for His Bride, these gifts will no longer be needed.

Oh, I didn’t say the Holy Spirit has abandoned the church, I merely suggested that those particular gifts, described as temporary, have currently ceased.

On what basis do you make such a suggestion? What proof do you have that the body of Christ does not need any more building?

1 Cor 14:12
12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for spiritual gifts, strive to excel in them for building up the church.

1 Cor 12:27-29

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 **And God has appointed in the church **first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.

Eph 4:12-13
…to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

Can you provide any credible evidence that the saints no longer need to be equipped?
That the Body of Christ needs no building?
That we have already arrived at the unity fo the faith?

It seems that your position is not scriptural.

 

[joe370]

No, we didn’t “miss” the Scripture. We are saying that your way of interpreting it, as if these gifts will only exist temporarily in the Church, is wrong. Jesus gave these gifts to the Church, to help the Church to grow unit He comes again. He is the “perfect”, and when He comes for His Bride, these gifts will no longer be needed.

Jesus’ church is the medium through which doctrinal truth is preserved and transmitted to all generations, until the end of time. It’s scriptural and logical. It’s the only way God could preserve and transmit truth, without affecting free will. God get’s all the credit; I wish our protestant brothers and sisters could see it that way.

 

[guanophore]

 That is a fair assertion.  Please show me how it is a falsehood.  Also, please show me how sacred tradition is required for the continued preservation of His Word.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God that He placed in the Church. Those who do not believe God can preserve His word where He placed it must find some way to justify this lack of faith.

I admit freely I don't understand the need for sacred tradition AND scripture.

The Apostles did not understand what Jesus meant when he said they had to eat HIs Body and drink His blood, either, but they accepted it because they trusted Him. You do not trust God to preserve His word, so you refuse the Apostolic commandment.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Why should you have to “understand the need” to do what the Apostle commands? Who are you to set your own judgment above the one God appointed to teach the faith? Really it just boils down to simple hubris.

What does sacred tradition provide that scripture does not? Or is it the catholic belief that sacred tradition preserves the bible and that’s the end of it. This is something I’m not clear on.

It is a good question, and anyone who takes the aposotlic command seriously is morally obligated to find an answer to it. Sacred Tradition provides the lens through which we read the Scripture, so we don’t misunderstand it, thinking the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased, for example.

You can keep using verses like this all you want. I don’t disagree with them. But the context of these passages is that they were written to first century christians who didn’t have the complete bible yet. So of course them keeping to what they’ve learned by word of mouth is important. I won’t dispute that.

Can you find any later instruction that tells us it is time to disregard them? Are there other Apostolic commands that you arbitrarily decide no longer apply because they are inconvenient?

That's a harsh assumption.  I'm not questioning if the Holy Spirit is too weak to preserve sacred tradition.  I'm questioning whether the Holy Spirit saw fit to preserve it.  I'm not saying the Word of God in the believers was lost at all.  After all, we have scripture which we can continuously refer to.

Yes, it is harsh, but I am trying to make a strong point. You are basically asserting that the HS did not see fit to preserve it. You have no evidence to support such a position except that you do not wish to be held personally accountable for disobedience to the apostolic command, so you are saying that command is invalid.

Actually I think it was someone else suggesting that sacred tradition doesn’t define anything differently than what scripture already does. I don’t suggest that because I know the catholic church is quite different from any sola scriptura church. But I do find fault with the idea that the trinity is a matter of sacred tradition because it is in scripture.

No, Traverse. The word Trinity is not found in the Scripture. It is a product solely of sacred Tradition. You see the concept in Scripture because you read the Scripture through the lens of this sacred tradition. Others, who reject this way of understanding, don’t see what you do (non-trinitarians).

The same is true for the hypostatic union.

The only thing not in scripture is the label of “trinity.” The “definition” showing up 100 years before the NT canon was closed is irrelevant anyway since I’ve shown that the early church knew what scripture was before the canonization anyway.

Then why was there a need to create a canon?

 

[guanophore]

Sure.

Act 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

Didache
But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread

Pliny the Younger
they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light

This is cheating, don’t you think? Using extrabiblical resources to try to prove that Scripture holds for Sunday observance? This one reference to the first day of the week does not say anything about a pattern or habit of gathering on that day. On the contrary, Paul always went to synagogue on the Sabbath.

So we know they weren’t keeping the sabbath but were instead devoting themselves to the first day of the week.

Actually, I think they did both.

Acts 13:14-15
4 but they went on from Perga and came to Antioch in Pisidia. And on the sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.

Acts 13:42-45

42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people urged them to speak about these things again the next sabbath. 43 When the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

44 The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.

Acts 14:1-2
The same thing occurred in Iconium, where Paul and Barnabas went into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks became believers.

Acts 17:1-2

thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and **on three sabbath days **argued with them from the scriptures

I could go on, but I think it is clear that the overwhelming evidence is for a Sabbath observance.

Paul was devoted to the Sabbath to the end of his life

Acts 26:5
They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I have belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and lived as a Pharisee.

Acts 18:18

After staying there for a considerable time, Paul said farewell to the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had his hair cut, for he was under a vow.

Acts 21:26
Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them.

Paul never stop being an observant Jew. He always went first to temple or synagogue, before meeting with the saints on any other day.

But speaking of that, what proof do you have that the Lord’s Day is anything other than the Sabbath?

But they did indeed meet with in the temples on sabbath days. But what was being done?

Act 18:4
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Paul did not disrupt the synagogue service. He and his companions participated just as they always had, and when the time came to speak, he would share the Gospel. They participated in the prayers and the reading of the Scripture.

When he visited the Temple he participated in the prayers, vows and sacrifices there too.

Now I’m not saying scripture or the church fathers completely forbid breaking bread on any other day of the week, but the example is only that it was done on the Lord’s day, so my curiosity was how it developed in the catholic church to being every day.

It did not happen until after Christianity was decriminalized by the Edict of Milan. The other issue was that the disciples of the Apostles considered only a valid Eucharist one that was united to a Bishop who was ordained by an apostle. The further the Church spread, the less often a Bishop visited.

The Mass that we have from the first century is lifted right out of the synagogue service. It is structured exactly the same, only with the addition of the Lord’s supper. The Christians did not get ejected from synagogue until after the destruction of the Temple, and even then, they had their own Christian synagogues.

NT evidence of a mandate for Sunday observance is weak.

 

[guanophore]

 Man, so many replies to answer!  I'm trying not to ignore anything so bear with me if I do!

I apologize. I did get carried away. Favorite topic of mine.

  Likewise, I have seen what appear to be contradictions with scripture and I don't see a problem with bringing those up.

You have come to the right place!

The Catholic position is that the Word of God exists in two equal and inseparable strands, Holy Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. Since they both come from the same Source, it is impossible for them to contradict. If they seem to contradict, then it is our perceptions that are the problem.

 I've already commented on this.  It was due to the gift of prophecy.  And when the bible was assembled all that need be was pass it down through the generations which doesn't exactly require continued infallibility so much as reverence for the inerrant word.

Your perspective is inconsistent with the historical record.

Again, first century christians who had the benefit of leadership of the apostles gifted with the Holy Spirit, as well as christians gifted with their own spiritual gifts makes for a different environment than we have today.

Only for those who are cut off from the Apostolic succession and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Jesus intended for this “environment” to remain until He comes to take His Bride to heaven.

It is my interpretation that the bible claims these gifts were temporary, and furthermore that I do not see these gifts anywhere today.

I appreciate your honesty in taking responsibiltiy for this opinion of yours. The fact that you do not observe something does not mean it does not exist. I have never seen the Northern lights myself, but I believe they exist because there is authorative testimony.

I also note that refusing to admit that these things till exist is a convenient way to excuse yourself from obedience to them.

   If they continue to exist please show me because then that would be a sufficient converting tool as the gifts were suggested to be in the new testament.

Are you saying if you saw tongues of fire coming to rest on the heads of Catholics you would convert?

This is a fantastic non-christian jab. Thanks.

I had trouble deciphering it after three tries.

I agree. The suggestion was that what was recorded by mouth was eventually recorded in the complete word of God so you’re following the complete revelation of God in the end.

Yes, this is an essential fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Yet, you will find no scripture verse to support such a position. In fact, the Bible states clearly that the complete word of God is NOT recorded there in, nor does it contain the complete revelation of God. No effort was ever made in compiling the NT to make a complete compendium of the faith.

Look at the context of this passage.  He is writing to a single church that doesn't have the bible.  Why wouldn't he encourage them to follow the traditions he's passed on that they don't have otherwise.

And since neither he, or any of the other Apostles, or successors of the Apostles ever expected the writings to contain the whole faith, why would anyone suggest that they STOP following the traditions? There is NO CONTRADICTION between the word of mouth and the writing.

 The question is whether the bible contains all that is sufficient for salvation NOW,

Well, this is not a question for Catholics, because we read in the bible clearly that this is not the case.

Why would it be necessary to try to twist that fact to it’s opposite? Because the Bible says we need the Church, and those who wish to reject the authority appointed by Christ need to find a way to justify such an action of rebellion.

not whether traditions were worth following before the bible was complete.

There is no evidence that the NT was ever intended to be a complete compendium of the faith.

There is no evidence that the Word of God committed to the Church by word of mouth should be disregarded after some of it was written.

We are under obligation to hold fast to all that we were given by the Apostles. We are not at liberty to jettison any of it just because we may not understand why it is needed.

The founding of the Church was eventually recorded in the bible, as well as the organization of the church and the positions therein.  Scripture contains the doctrines of the church. ** The only thing it doesn't contain is the description of the closing of the canon.**

You have no evidence to support this last statement. You have no compendium from revealed from God about what should be contained. I think you wish this fabrication to be true so that you do not have to obey the commands of the Apostles.

 I don't dispute that teaching happened outside of scripture, but I have a problem when you can't fathom that that teaching was eventually recorded.

Some of it was recorded in the NT, and much of it has been recorded outside of it. Some is contained in the prayers of the Church, some in the liturgy, rituals, canons and lives of the saints. No effort was ever made to contain all of the faith in the NT. The NT was never intended to be separated from the Church that produced it.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is actually my entire point. When the catholic church claims to be THE church, claims to have sacred tradition… how do you know that the claims are accurate?

This is not a question meant to show you that I therefore believe the catholic church is false and get you to look at yourself, I am attempting to ask an honest question and not attack you.

There were divisions from the very beginning before the canonization of scripture. So when a church claims to present the canon, how do you know that is the church and not one of the other divisions?

There was one true church in the beginning, and I believe it has survived to this day. My question is… is this church the catholic church or not?

Traverse,

All you need to do is go backwards. You believe that one true Church survived to this day. So take that Church and trace it’s history in reverse. Let us take for instance…

The Campbells and the Church of Christ. Now they wanted to restore what they believe was lost based on the Bible.

Alexander Campbell was ordained in the Bush Run Church

Thomas Campbell was a Presbyterian, so we know that they came from the Calvinists and Calvin was a Catholic.

Now we know that if they based their beliefs on the Bible, we have to ask where they got that Bible and since in 1811 this was 200 years after Tynsdale had stolen the Vulgate from the Catholic Church and the Geneva Bible, a Protestant Bible and we know…

These Protestant Bibles all contained the books later dropped by Protestants…

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

Council Trent 1545-1563

King James 1611

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti…PagePosition=1

The original King James can be viewed at the above website. You may want to look at it.

The “Apocrypha” was officially removed from the English printings of the KJV in 1885 leaving only 66 books.

In 1880 the American Bible Society voted remove the “Apocrypha” Books from the King James Version…They were cheaper to print with fewer pages.

So on whose authority were these books removed. Recall all Protestants are fallible and next who is it that speaks for all Protestants?

So what happened from 1611 to 1885. Was Protestant thought filled with error while using the Bible with the deuterocanonical?

So, when you look at the Book that the Protestants call the Bible and the Campbellites want to base beliefs on the Bible, this book was actually stolen from the Catholic Church and then books were removed…

So we know that the Church of Christ is not the Church founded by Christ since the book they base it on was stolen from the Catholic Church and then books were removed.

Ok:thumbsup:

What Church do you believe is the Church that has survived today as you say?

 

[Porknpie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traverse
The question is whether the bible contains all that is sufficient for salvation NOW,

I know this is a 500 year old question…but what is the source for this teaching? If not from the bible, from whom…and by what authority?

 

[guanophore]

I know this is a 500 year old question…but what is the source for this teaching? If not from the bible, from whom…and by what authority?

“…say right out to him: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough.”

Martin Luther established himself as sufficient authority. He writes about this in his letters, contained in the Works.