**We also reject tradition that is against the Scriptures. Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict each other as they are both the Word of God.
I have been on “christian” forums and I can assure you they speak about SS all the time and use it as the foundation for dismissing the church. The unfortunate thing is SS is itself non biblical
Certainly the scriptures delegate authority, including authority of the church (also to husbands over their wives, parents over children etc…) This does not negate that the fact that the church must submit herself to the scriptures however.You missed my point, and the irony continues.
WRONG.
Let’s not make this a sola scriptura debate, rather keep it focused on the idea that ss advocates use a double standard. There are somethings you said in your post I agree with, but we could run around for days talking about the points we disagree with. For instance, I agree that the scriptures came from the church, and represent teachings from the church. They didn’t just fall out of the sky into the lap of the church.
When writing his letters, Paul was teaching various churches with Apostolic authority.Hello Johnny,Let’s not make this a sola scriptura debate, rather keep it focused on the idea that ss advocates use a double standard. There are somethings you said in your post I agree with, but we could run around for days talking about the points we disagree with. For instance, I agree that the scriptures came from the church, and represent teachings from the church. They didn’t just fall out of the sky into the lap of the church.
By whose interpretation do you weigh tradition vs. the Bible and whether or not it’s ‘against the Bible’?
Jon,
Then I would think some discernment would be in order. Christ taught that a house divided cannot stand, so I do not believe the Holy Spirit is guiding believers in different directions. Paul taught to be of the same mind and judgment. Paul taught to hold to the traditions taught, whether by word or epistle. ALL of that is in the scriptures…
the odd part of this is that they will allow differing interpretations to the Nth degree ( 33K or whatever ) excepting two interpretations, those of the catholic, and when they differ, the orthodox, church. Whenever the latter two make an interpretation they automatically dismiss it out of hand. with any other party, they will allow differences, and simply go their own way.
Not taken that way, Mary. I’ll answer your question using the Lutheran confessions: The very first section of the Book of Concord is, nota writing of Luther or Melanchthon, but the three ecumenical Creeds. I don’t believe this is by coincidence. Sola scriptura is not, when properly practiced, an exclusion or rejection of Tradition. It is the practice of requiring these things to be subject to scripture.Of course, JonNC.I should have said “some” or “most” protestants. That said, what else do protestants have besides the bible? Don’t they all reject tradition or any type of authority other than their own interpretations when it gets right down to it?
Please don’t read any sarcasm into that…it is not meant that way.
That’s not what I was doing - and I don’t believe this is off-topic.**Let’s not make this a sola scriptura debate, rather keep it focused on the idea that ss advocates use a double standard. There are somethings you said in your post I agree with, but we could run around for days talking about the points we disagree with. For instance, I agree that the scriptures came from the church, and represent teachings from the church. They didn’t just fall out of the sky into the lap of the church.
so where in scripture does it say scripture is the ultimate authority? ( leaving aside possible idolatry related conclusions )
That’s “unbiblical”.
This is only an issue, at least from my POV, if one understands protestantism as a monolith that has fractured and splintered. That monolith of a “Protestant Church” has never existed. So, from my perspective as a Lutheran, I see the Augsburg Confession as a confession that fits within historical catholicity (even Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger pondered aloud about this possibility from a Catholic view), and therefore rightly reflecting the truth of scripture.
I don’t believe it does, in an explicit way at least. That is why I reject the notion that only those who practice it can be saved, which I have heard before. The issue, then, becomes (speaking only for me), whose interpretation of Tradition should I believe, one patriarch who stands alone, or the others who stand in unity?
Could you give us an example of “one patriarch who stands alone”, please.
How, exactly, does he stand alone??