The Rationale of Bible Believing/Sola Scriptura Christians?

[babylonsfalling]

More than once I’ve heard it said by self identified “Bible Believing Christians” that they don’t believe in tradition, which makes zero sense based on Scripture coming directly from the same Bible which they say they believe in.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The Bible clearly supports tradition so how does a Bible Believing Christian NOT believe in tradition?
The Catholic respect for tradition is directly supported with Biblical Scripture so if Catholics accept tradition and “Bible Believing Christians” don’t, how can they sensibly call themselves “Bible Believing Christians” in the first place?
In reference to this term; “Bible Believing Christians” it seems Catholics exemplify it better than those who have this constant need to differentiate themselves from other Christians by calling themselves “Bible Believing Christians.”
The term itself seems to be a little bigoted because by a kind of reverse-implication, it strongly suggests that “those OTHER Christians” don’t believe in the Bible. Why else would they need to specify that they’re a Christian which DOES believe in the Bible. But when the term “Bible Believing Christian” is used by people who actually ignore Scripture when it becomes inconvenient to their religion, it begins to smack of hypocrisy.

And explanations?

 

[Ben_F]

Pray for these people. I hear it all the time. I´m not Catholic. I´m Christian. Or words to that effect. It´s really a sign that they are insecure with their own faith. I don´t know where I read it, but it was in the Bible. I think it was Peter that indicated that silence is the best we can do, when confronted with this type of comment. Something to the effect that it reaps coals of something on the wrong doer. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Dave2300]

Absolutely, Better off praying for them, using that energy to pray rather than talk to them about the Bible, which they think they know inside and out, and they do, in a way, but they tend to ignore that which tends to not support their particular viewpoint.
They confuse traditions of men, which the Pharisees had in abundance, with TRADITION of the early Christians, which was handed down to us before the Bible was even written.

They forget that there WAS no Bible at all, except the OT, for centuries after the Resurrection. So looking at it from their own point of view, the ones who say that Tradition doesn’t count, that’s all people had was Tradition, before the NT was available to people.

In other words, as there was no Bible as such, and there was only Tradition, that means no one can be saved if they lived before there was a Bible they could open up and read, and this is plainly absurd. None of the 12 had a Bible, and they believed.

It’s a matter not only of semantics but of being willing to understand.
Pray for them that they might come into the Light from the darkness.
They don’t respond well to, ironically enough, arguments from Scripture itself!

The huge huge problem here is that they really believe they have a monopoly on what the Bible says. No other interpretation is to even be considered. Don’t confuse them with plain biblical text. Same as John 6, you can argue all day long that Jesus was talking about his REAL body and blood, but they are so ingrained in their interpretation, that they will not see otherwise.

Same thing with Sola Scriptura. It’s as deeply ingrained as it can be.

 

[jnpl1185]

Why did you start a new thread? These topics are being dealt with in the similar thread below.

 

[Dave2300]

See if a moderator can combine them.
I’m sure the original poster did not see the other thread.

 

[jnpl1185]

He took the very same question and quote from the thread on Sola Scriptura. And the question was just posed there in a similar way.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Absolutely, Better off praying for them, using that energy to pray rather than talk to them about the Bible, which they think they know inside and out, and they do, in a way, but they tend to ignore that which tends to not support their particular viewpoint.
They confuse traditions of men, which the Pharisees had in abundance, with TRADITION of the early Christians, which was handed down to us before the Bible was even written.

They forget that there WAS no Bible at all, except the OT, for centuries after the Resurrection. So looking at it from their own point of view, the ones who say that Tradition doesn’t count, that’s all people had was Tradition, before the NT was available to people.

In other words, as there was no Bible as such, and there was only Tradition, that means no one can be saved if they lived before there was a Bible they could open up and read, and this is plainly absurd. None of the 12 had a Bible, and they believed.

It’s a matter not only of semantics but of being willing to understand.
Pray for them that they might come into the Light from the darkness.
They don’t respond well to, ironically enough, arguments from Scripture itself!

The huge huge problem here is that they really believe they have a monopoly on what the Bible says. No other interpretation is to even be considered. Don’t confuse them with plain biblical text. Same as John 6, you can argue all day long that Jesus was talking about his REAL body and blood, but they are so ingrained in their interpretation, that they will not see otherwise.

Same thing with Sola Scriptura. It’s as deeply ingrained as it can be.

It would still be nice to hear a sensible explanation for calling oneself a "Bible believing Christian on the one hand and rejecting Scripture on the other hand. This has been an issue for a long time with that verse…and I can’t even get an attempt at a real response. I get a rephrasing of my question into another question, I get my question responded to with a completely different question, I get muddled, bizarre interpretations of a verse with a very self-evident meaning, etc etc etc.

But never a real explanation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

We do hold fast to his traditions from his epistles. The verse does not indicate the two are any different. Some people heard him spoke. Some read it or heard it read.
There are not two conflicting things here. Its referring to the same thing.

 

[babylonsfalling]

We do hold fast to his traditions from his epistles. The verse does not indicate the two are any different. Some people heard him spoke. Some read it or heard it read.
There are not two conflicting things here. Its referring to the same thing.

LOL Sorry but…no.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

He’s not setting up tradition in his epistles. Tradition already existed and it was legitimate whether learned by word of mouth (which came first) or by written word (which came second and was actually dependent on pre-existing oral tradition. There is also nothing in there to indicate that the traditions he was talking about were ONLY traditions found in written form.

The main point here is that tradition has always been acceptable, and still is, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be listed in Scripture. Paul knew that and that is why he wrote it that way.

The “word” he was referring to was likely not even Pauls word or he would have referred to it as “my” word or “our” word…just as he did when he went on to refer to the epistle as “our epistle.”

And anyway…you know as well as I do that every gospel in the Bible existed AS tradition before becoming Scripture. Everyone else knows it too so it’s a wonder why you guys keep playing this game.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There is also nothing in there to indicate that the traditions he was talking about were ONLY traditions found in written form.

:

Paul is not speaking about two seperate things.

hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle

He taught them in person and he wrote them down.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Paul is not speaking about two seperate things. <—Where is it said or indicated that, despite the fact that he mentions two things, (word "OR" epistle) he’s talking of only one thing?

He taught them in person and he wrote them down.<—Everyone knows that. Are you still not paying attention to WHAT he wrote down AND taught in person?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Okay……So he says two different things using two different words but you know somehow that he’s talking about only one thing. I’ll help you…and probably let you have the last word because (since you’re already responding with the old “I’m right but I can’t explain how” defense) I think you’re already into a game of “Last Wordism”.

Paul’s actually talking about three different things in that verse. The first thing is “traditions which ye have been taught”, which he tells people to hold onto. That’s an example of Paul accepting traditions, without specifically defining them. That’s all we need to know to accept the notion of traditions ourselves. Since Paul doesn’t specifically define which traditions are acceptable and since he doesn’t list traditions that aren’t acceptable, there could remain a debate about the details of the tradition, but it’s still clear that traditions (generally speaking) are okay.

The second thing he talks about is “word” and in the same sentence he talks about “epistle”. He also puts the word “or” between them. The word “or” is used to represent two alternatives, (one OR the other)…

Here’s the definition…

a logical operator that requires either of two (name removed by moderator)uts to be present or conditions to be met for an output to be made or a statement to be executed

The two (name removed by moderator)uts in that verse are “word” and “epistle” and the word “or” is makes them alternatives…and alternatives are different. They could have learned by word OR epistle which are different, alternative things that Paul IS talking about as “two separate things”.

I know you want to be right real bad but the language used by Paul doesn’t support you.

Regarding what he taught and wrote down…we know he wrote down that tradition is acceptable. Presumably he taught the same thing. Either way…tradition is acceptable.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Paul does not indicate two seperate things. He taught them orally. He wrote them down. Are you aware of any proof that something Paul taught orally but did not write down is part of your authentic traditions?

 

[Nicea325]

Paul does not indicate two seperate things. He taught them orally. He wrote them down. Are you aware of any proof that something Paul taught orally but did not write down is part of your authentic traditions?

I can think of one: Canon of Scripture. Isn’t is considered Apostolic in origin? Or is it a fanciful innovation by pious men?

Actually the question is: What is Tradition?

What does the Catholic Church mean by tradition? The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics.

Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Peace

 

[WarriorAngel]

Scriptures refute being the sole authority.
St Peter said if we wrest the scriptures, we damn ourselves.

Every scripture only church wrests them to figure out or give an opinion thereof to what it means, so it clearly states this damns the one doing so.

WE are not supposed to be sola scriptura, says the scriptura.

 

[JonNC]

I can think of one: Canon of Scripture. Isn’t is considered Apostolic in origin? Or is it a fanciful innovation by pious men?

Actually the question is: What is Tradition?

What does the Catholic Church mean by tradition? The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics.

Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Peace

And peace also with you, my friend.

Regarding the paragraph I bolded, this is all the (true) sola scripturist asks, this overlap of which you speak.

Jon

 

[gerard1984]

Okay……So he says two different things using two different words but you know somehow that he’s talking about only one thing. I’ll help you…and probably let you have the last word because (since you’re already responding with the old “I’m right but I can’t explain how” defense) I think you’re already into a game of “Last Wordism”.

Paul’s actually talking about three different things in that verse. The first thing is “traditions which ye have been taught”, which he tells people to hold onto. That’s an example of Paul accepting traditions, without specifically defining them. That’s all we need to know to accept the notion of traditions ourselves. Since Paul doesn’t specifically define which traditions are acceptable and since he doesn’t list traditions that aren’t acceptable, there could remain a debate about the details of the tradition, but it’s still clear that traditions (generally speaking) are okay.

The second thing he talks about is “word” and in the same sentence he talks about “epistle”. He also puts the word “or” between them. The word “or” is used to represent two alternatives, (one OR the other)…

Here’s the definition…

The two (name removed by moderator)uts in that verse are “word” and “epistle” and the word “or” is makes them alternatives…and alternatives are different. They could have learned by word OR epistle which are different, alternative things that Paul IS talking about as “two separate things”.

I know you want to be right real bad but the language used by Paul doesn’t support you.

Regarding what he taught and wrote down…we know he wrote down that tradition is acceptable. Presumably he taught the same thing. Either way…tradition is acceptable.

13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits** to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

The Greek word word for tradition means instruction. So Paul was telling them to hold fast to the teachings(instruction) that he gave them. Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel and that is what he was doing. It was passed on by word of mouth or by letter.

I think that the oral instruction will never contradict what is in the written Word.**

 

[Rightlydivide]

I can think of one: Canon of Scripture. Isn’t is considered Apostolic in origin? Or is it a fanciful innovation by pious men?

Actually the question is: What is Tradition?

What does the Catholic Church mean by tradition? The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics.

Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

Peace

So it appears we differ on the definition of tradition enough to make the whole discussion…moot. Might as well avoid the frustration

 

[Nicea325]

So it appears we differ on the definition of tradition enough to make the whole discussion…moot. Might as well avoid the frustration

My friend, I merely gave you the Catholic definition of Tradition. By all means, go ahead and express your understanding of what tradition means to you or your specific Christian tradition. We might not agree,but at least we know what we each believe an can respect each others beliefs. Trust me, I am not going to attack you or insult your position.

Peace.

 

[mackbrislawn]

We do hold fast to his traditions from his epistles. The verse does not indicate the two are any different. Some people heard him spoke. Some read it or heard it read.
There are not two conflicting things here. Its referring to the same thing.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

This indicates there were two ways the traditions were taught. Part of the traditions were delivered orally and part by letter. This verse makes it very clear that not all of the teachings were taught by letter. Other teachings were taught orally. Both are to be held firm to. And if you hold firm to only the written traditions you are not holding to all the Christian teachings. This needs to be repeated: the written tradition is only part of the entire tradition of the apostles.

Yes, you are right, there are not two conflicting things here at all. They are two complementary things–two things that complement and complete each other. Both are necessary for complete understanding.

2 Peter 3:15:16 makes this point very emphatically: “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him…there are some things in them hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady wrest to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

Pay attention to the word “untaught.” Untaught in what? Why, nothing else but the traditions that were taught by word of mouth!

You see, scripture was not written in a vacuum. It was written in the context of pre-existing Christian teaching, tradition if you will. It is only within that context, that framework, that scripture can be properly understood.

 

[Rightlydivide]

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

This indicates there were two ways the traditions were taught. Part of the traditions were delivered orally and part by letter. This verse makes it very clear that not all of the teachings were taught by letter. .

No, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t.