Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Isaiah45_9]

Though I have to ask, why do you think that that is the result of a translation bias on the part of the NIV?

Because one of the biggest conflicts between Catholics and Protestants is: Tradition and tradition. But Tradition more than tradition. As Catholics we are well aware of the role Tradition plays and it is clear that Scriptures are the written aspect of the Oral Traditions of the Church and of the Jewish people. It’s the never ending comparison of the Word of God in written form vs. the Word of God in oral form.

When place in complete context, it is clear that after reading the NIV you associate tradition with the Pharisees and teaching with the Apostles. Instead of it being the same word: “Paradosis”

The average person will read the NIV and then hear a Catholic talk about Tradition and think Pharisee.

It is best represented by this common argument:

“I don’t follow the traditions of mere men, I follow the Word of God”.

Like the Word of God came imprinted in paper… It totally ignores the Oral transmission and how the are intrinsically tied to Tradition.

Is there a substantial difference in your thinking between teaching and tradition?

In context absolutely. Can you make a case of it being similar? Of course, it’s a play of words… But:

What is the context?

 

[benjohnson]

Ben,

Forget the notes… It is clearly an issue for them to use “the pillar” - it’s talking about The Church as a Whole - not a building that has only one column…

Uh…oh… this isn’t that simple as the ESV as bring poetic.

Young’s Literal Translation supports the ESV

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A15&version=YLT

“and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God – a pillar and foundation of the truth.”

 

[benjohnson]

Ok… now we’re all into deep water

The greek isn’t clear

Here’s a good ananlyis :

biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-15.htm

And here’s some Greek analysis saying that the stress is on God.

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=42066.0

Oddly enough, the romance languages bible translations seem to be evenly split.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ok… now we’re all into deep water

The greek isn’t clear

Here’s a good ananlyis :

biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-15.htm

And here’s some Greek analysis saying that the stress is on God.

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=42066.0

Oddly enough, the romance languages bible translations seem to be evenly split.

Of course the stress is on God, the Church is His Body and He is the Head.

You can search all you want ben, ESV lost all trust from me. If all you can find is Young’s and a couple of websites - in comparison to the vast majority of the translations, well… I rest my case.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because one of the biggest conflicts between Catholics and Protestants is: Tradition and tradition. But Tradition more than tradition. As Catholics we are well aware of the role Tradition plays and it is clear that Scriptures are the written aspect of the Oral Traditions of the Church and of the Jewish people. It’s the never ending comparison of the Word of God in written form vs. the Word of God in oral form.

When place in complete context, it is clear that after reading the NIV you associate tradition with the Pharisees and teaching with the Apostles. Instead of it being the same word: “Paradosis”

The average person will read the NIV and then hear a Catholic talk about Tradition and think Pharisee.

It is best represented by this common argument:

“I don’t follow the traditions of mere men, I follow the Word of God”.

Like the Word of God came imprinted in paper… It totally ignores the Oral transmission and how the are intrinsically tied to Tradition.

In context absolutely. Can you make a case of it being similar? Of course, it’s a play of words… But:

What is the context?

I suppose it’s irrelevant to me. I have a hard time thinking that the NIV translators were motivated to translate it as teaching simply out of anti-Catholic bias. I don’t see the justification for that, honestly. If anything, they were motivated by the word being used to refer to oral traditions from Moses. In contrast, what Jesus teaches is not tradition, since it originates from Him and not any other source, as He is its author.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The written Scriptures specifically mention handing things down by word of mouth. In 2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” And in 1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

But the unproven assertion of quoting the above text, kc, is that when Paul says what they heard from him, received and believed, is something other than what we find in the Scriptures. For the Catholic to argue that this text points to oral tradition that is not contained in Scripture that is taught by Rome, you’d have to demonstrate it. Is Paul here talking about purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, the sacerdotal priesthood, the papacy, et al?

For us, what Paul is referring to here is when he preached orally to the Thessalonians (as detailed in Acts 17). The content is the same between what he preached and what he later wrote in the letter we call 1 Thessalonians.

Both of these written Scriptures say that we need to follow the oral traditions and accept them as the Word of God. If you believe in sola scriptura, then you HAVE to believe that the oral traditions are also the Word of God. The Bible tells us so.

But what we don’t have to accept is that the oral traditions taught by the apostles are the same oral traditions as are believed by the Catholic Church.

 

[benjohnson]

Of course the stress is on God, the Church is His Body and He is the Head.

You can search all you want ben, ESV lost all trust from me. If all you can find is Young’s and a couple of websites - in comparison to the vast majority of the translations, well… I rest my case.

Frankly, the only reason the ESV gets any traction is that there’s a lot worse now days.

What should grab your attention is that the Greek isn’t definitive, as you can see with Young’s.

I’m trying to point out that in this case the ESV translation don’t have to come from some sort of conspiracy - the greek is ambiguous.

 

[steido01]

I suppose it’s irrelevant to me. I have a hard time thinking that the NIV translators were motivated to translate it as teaching simply out of anti-Catholic bias. I don’t see the justification for that, honestly. If anything, they were motivated by the word being used to refer to oral traditions from Moses. In contrast, what Jesus teaches is not tradition, since it originates from Him and not any other source, as He is its author.

^^^This.

“For you have heard… But I tell you…”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Per Crucem:

In contrast, what Jesus teaches is not tradition, since it originates from Him and not any other source, as He is its author.

Indeed, and yet His teaching is based on His Traditions and the Words He spoke to His disciples, who in turn taught others in the very same Tradition established by Christ in Matthew:

[Bibledrb]Matthew 28:16-20[/bibledrb]

The masterful example from our Lord establishing His Church to carry out His teachings through Tradition, protected by the Spirit of Truth in His Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

^^^This.

“For you have heard… But I tell you…”

Don,

This is the Catholic position. What Christ **told **the Apostles to teach.

 

[steido01]

Don,

This is the Catholic position. What Christ **told **the Apostles to teach.

Thanks, Jose. Then it really seems a simple matter of definitions, and PerCrucem’s point is accurate - what Jesus establishes is different from what had been ‘tradition’ according to the Law and the Prophets. It makes sense that the translators would differentiate between the two, and I don’t see any way that this can be attributed to anti-Roman Catholic bias. It’s… English.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks, Jose. Then it really seems a simple matter of definitions, and PerCrucem’s point is accurate - what Jesus establishes is different from what had been ‘tradition’ according to the Law and the Prophets. It makes sense that the translators would differentiate between the two, and I don’t see any way that this can be attributed to anti-Roman Catholic bias. It’s… English.

It’s against all good traditions, not just Catholic ones.

For example,

The ELCA is Lutheran and the LCMS is Lutheran. Lutheran has only one meaning.

Whenever I want to speak well about Lutherans, I say ELCA. Whenever I was to speak ill about Lutherans, I say LCMS. After all you are both Lutherans. But I am pretty certain that the LCMS would not be too excited about my choice.

There are some differences between translating Lutheran and Paradosis. But the principle is the same.

Your argumentation and Crucem’s is a dangerous one because it relaxes principles. How about inclusive gender? Leaving out certain passages? Including biased notes for certain verses, like: “The best scrolls omit this passage”. Best scrolls according to whom? What else do you want to give up? We can see where the gender inclusive biased is doing!?

Guess what happens when a biased is used against tradition? Against the importance of just one body of Christ? The individual becomes convinced that he only needs to listen to what the “Holy Spirit” tells him. It doesn’t matter that it contradicts the very same “Holy Spirit” because that is what it’s telling me. We can both be right, you do your thing and I do my thing.

Little things like this fuel the spirit of dissension. That is NOT the “Holy Spirit”.

You both want to be relaxed about this… I won’t.

[bibledrb]1 Thessalonians 5:21[/bibledrb]

 

[SeekerofTruth27]

Hey everyone! Thanks for all of the responses! There are some questions I would like to ask. How do you know that Sacred Scripture is valid? The canon of Sacred Scripture was not given to us by Jesus while He was on Earth. The canon of Scripture was established by the Catholic Church centuries after Jesus ascended into Heaven. So what did the early Christians follow during the time between Jesus’ ascension and the compiling of the official books of the Bible? All they could have had to follow was Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Scripture is valid because Sacred Tradition said so.

Someone else made a similar point rather early on in the thread but was never replied to.

Also, since the Catholic Church had the authority to establish Scripture, then doesn’t it make sense that it is the only Faith that has the authority to make official interpretations?

Hope to hear from you all soon!

God bless!

 

[benjohnson]

All they could have had to follow was Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Scripture is valid because Sacred Tradition said so.

Certainly. And any new tradition that contradicts Sacred Scripture would be shown to be false.

Also, since the Catholic Church had the authority to establish Scripture, then doesn’t it make sense that it is the only Faith that has the authority to make official interpretations?!

Sound reasonable, as we Lutherans claim to be a valid continuation of the western church, and sola scriptura is a practice of the church.

 

[SeekerofTruth27]

Hey benjohnson,

Certainly. And any new tradition that contradicts Sacred Scripture would be shown to be false.

There aren’t any Catholic Sacred Traditions that contradict Sacred Scripture. However, some of our Sacred Traditions may conflict with an individual’s personal interpretation of Scripture.

Sound reasonable, as we Lutherans claim to be a valid continuation of the western church, and sola scriptura is a practice of the church.

I am somewhat confused by this statement. You seem to start by agreeing that only the Catholic Church can officially interpret Sacred Scripture, but then you switch to saying that the Lutheran church can. Could you please explain your position on who can officially interpret Sacred Scripture?

God bless!

“One of Einstein’s assistants once said that saying that all of this could come about from a series of explosions is like saying an unabridged dictionary could come from a printshop explosion. BOOM! What’s that? Oh, the printshop exploded: bindings, covers, pages, ink, flying through the air! Look, a dictionary…WHOA!” - Chris Stefanick

 

[Nicea325]

The short answer would be that God is the highest authority for the Church. Therefore, **His word (which carries His authority) is the highest authority for the Church. **Tradition has its place, of course. However, where that tradition contradicts the written word or is not present in that written word, it cannot be made dogma. I understand, of course, that Sacred Tradition in Catholic theology is God’s word. Any tradition would have to be verified as being that word or as having come from Christ or His apostles. There are some traditions that I do believe come from the apostles that are not present explicitly in Scripture (such as Mary’s ever-virginity), so I accept them. But I do not accept them as de fide revealed dogma.

Okay,but where is God’s Word binded to written words alone? On the contrary,the written first had to lineup with the oral Tradition,not vice versa.

 

[Nicea325]

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that you “only follow scripture” at least not to Luther or Calvin or Cranmer. Sola Scriptura for us means that scripture is the highest authority by which all other authorities must be normed. That is the norm that is itself not normed by anything else. That doesn’t mean we don’t follow tradition or reason, those are great sources of truth. But Gods word is the ultimate truth, and it has to be, since tradition and reason are often wrong, often fallible, and often subject to change. That’s why scripture has to be the highest authority.

And care to show us where God and scripture explicitly confirm your words in red?

 

[Nicea325]

But the unproven assertion of quoting the above text, kc, is that when Paul says what they heard from him, received and believed, is something other than what we find in the Scriptures. **For the Catholic to argue that this text points to oral tradition that is not contained in Scripture that is taught by Rome, you’d have to demonstrate it. **Is Paul here talking about purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, the sacerdotal priesthood, the papacy, et al?

For us, what Paul is referring to here is when he preached orally to the Thessalonians (as detailed in Acts 17). The content is the same between what he preached and what he later wrote in the letter we call 1 Thessalonians.

But what we don’t have to accept is that the oral traditions taught by the apostles are the same oral traditions as are believed by the Catholic Church.

Seriously? So Rome has a poor understanding of Paul until Protestants arrived? Demonstrate what? Do you even know the meaning of Tradition? Such a comment makes one raise an eye brow.

 

[Nicea325]

Here you are getting into a circular argument. You base your view of the church and its authority on your personal interpretation of Scripture. Because your interpretation agrees with the church you are Catholic. It comes down to the church has authority because scripture says so and scripture has authority because the church says so. Unless you are willing to believe the church because it tells you to, without any other basis for that belief.

Because the church says so? Ah no! Try because God says so! Jesus makes it very clear where authority lies…and not a word that it is soley the Bible. Such a belief is novelty!

 

[SyCarl]

Because the church says so? Ah no! Try because God says so! Jesus makes it very clear where authority lies…and not a word that it is soley the Bible. Such a belief is novelty!

How do you know that God says so or that Jesus made it clear where authority lies? Is it because you believe the Bible says so? Then you are relying on your own interpretation of Scripture and until you make that personal interpretation you have no basis for the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestants are chided for relying on personal interpretation. However your position is based on your interpretation that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims. You may then rely on its interpretation but you must make your own first.