Sola Scriptural or Traditions of Men?

[דוד חֵן (David)]

The term "Sola Scriptural" is meant by relying wholly upon and only in Scripture as the basis for Church doctrines and practices. If one doesn't base one's beliefs on Scripture, what does one base it upon? The Talmud?

Make no mistake, practices like kneeling down while praying are fine as long as it's done in humility before God. God doesn't care about your physical position while you pray, it's about your state of mind. Are you driven to prostrate yourself before God, or are you kneeling down for the sake of doing it? Tradition for the interests of tradition. Do as you are told, that's tradition.

What is the purpose of church tradition and observance? Many do it unquestionably because that's what they think Christianity is. Unless one can explain the purpose of a particular Church tradition and its foundation in scripture, is it necessary to follow the custom? Is Christianity a religion based on tradition or is it based on the truth? Can truth be known without scripture as the measuring rod? For beliefs to be valid, it must not contradict the Word of God. There's nothing worst than unbiblical traditions. Scripture gives us a solid ground on which to base Church beliefs and doctrines.

As been written in 2 Timothy 3:16, All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

 

[Albion]

The term "Sola Scriptural" is meant by relying wholly upon and only in Scripture as the basis for Church doctrines and practices.

MMmmm, No. That's not what Sola Scriptura is. It's the POV that Scripture is the ultimate determiner of necessary doctrine, to the exclusion of legend, folklore and theological speculation, including church decrees, councils, and so on. It's not that we cannot take other factors into consideration (reason, history, etc) when interpreting Scripture. But that's not the same as making these equal to Scripture in authority (as "Holy Tradition" does).

Make no mistake, practices like kneeling down while praying are fine as long as it's done in humility before God. God doesn't care about your physical position while you pray, it's about your state of mind. Are you driven to prostrate yourself before God, or are you kneeling down for the sake of doing it? Tradition for the interests of tradition. Do as you are told, that's tradition.

Yes. Those practices would be traditional. But they are not "Tradition" which determines DOGMA.

 

[AngelOf Laodicea]

MMmmm, No. That's not what Sola Scriptura is. It's the POV that Scripture is the ultimate determiner of necessary doctrine, to the exclusion of legend, folklore and theological speculation, including church decrees, councils, and so on. It's not that we cannot take other factors into consideration (reason, history, etc) when interpreting Scripture. But that's not the same as making these equal to Scripture in authority (as "Holy Tradition" does).


Yes. Those practices would be traditional. But they are not "Tradition" which determines DOGMA.

I compare things to history, culture, and social factors.
This actually helps to understand scripture a lot better.

That does not give credence to the practice of building doctrine on the fact that the church "accepts" something or doesn't contradict in an obvious manner. A teaching must be built upon scripture, not the lack of contradicting scripture.

I can invent a history of how cheese burgers invaded the hitites and came to Israel for help and were given the first recorded bottle of mustard and insist that it is true because nothing can be found within scripture or history to PROVE it to be wrong; but we MUST BASE IT UPON THE BIBLE, not what isn't there in order for it to be valid

 

[Albion]

I compare things to history, culture, and social factors.
This actually helps to understand scripture a lot better.

That does not give credence to the practice of building doctrine on the fact that the church "accepts" something or doesn't contradict in an obvious manner. A teaching must be built upon scripture, not the lack of contradicting scripture.

I agree. And that is a point well worth making because we do hear that argument posted here from time to time ("It doesn't contradict scripture, so it's fair game for being declared a dogma by the church.").

 

[Goatee]

We have 'Sacred Tradition' entwined with 'Sacred Scripture'. Simples

 

[דוד חֵן (David)]

We have 'Sacred Tradition' entwined with 'Sacred Scripture'. Simples

How do you know the tradition is sacred if it's not based on scripture?

What is your "sacred tradition" founded on specifically and how do you know that the foundation has Authority?

 

[amadeois]

But traditions are created by men and not God.

Are we so bright and wise that we can create things equal to God?

No way my friends. We are sinners per se.

What did Jesus say about the traditions of men?

Who is behind the creation of these traditions?

None other than the father of lies: Satan.

Can we mix God ideas with Satan's ideas?

YOU DECIDE AND THEN BE READY TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.

IF YOU ARE SMART, YOU'LL GO WITH GOD.

IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT, YOU'LL GO WITH THE LOOSING TEAM.

It is your choice.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I compare things to history, culture, and social factors.
This actually helps to understand scripture a lot better.

That does not give credence to the practice of building doctrine on the fact that the church "accepts" something or doesn't contradict in an obvious manner. A teaching must be built upon scripture, not the lack of contradicting scripture.

I can invent a history of how cheese burgers invaded the hitites and came to Israel for help and were given the first recorded bottle of mustard and insist that it is true because nothing can be found within scripture or history to PROVE it to be wrong; but we MUST BASE IT UPON THE BIBLE, not what isn't there in order for it to be valid

How do we know that God will not reveal more or make clarifications outside the bible?

 

[Albion]

How do we know that God will not reveal more or make clarifications outside the bible?

Suppose (although there's no reason to think it so) we answer "We agree that he will?"

Do you then believe, implicitly, every claim that says "Here it is!"

That's worse than the argument that is used by every huckster and religious lunatic who says "I am a prophet and the Bible says that there will be prophets, so you have to believe me."

 

[Landon Caeli]

Suppose (although there's no reason to think it so) we answer "We agree that he will?"

Do you then believe, implicitly, every claim that says "Here it is!"

That's worse than the argument that is used by every huckster and religious lunatic who says "I am a prophet and the Bible says that there will be prophets, so you have to believe me."

Well, if it's from the same Tradition that chose what Scriptures to include in the Bible, and which to reject, then how unsafe could it be?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Wasnt the Bible written by the hands of MEN?

 

[Albion]

Well, if it's from the same Tradition that chose what Scriptures to include in the Bible, and which to reject, then how unsafe could it be?

First, it's not "from the same Tradition."

Second, it can be -- and was terribly unsafe, which is why the Reformation started.

 

[Albion]

Wasnt the Bible written by the hands of MEN?

They wrote as God inspired them to write (according to the Bible).

 

[amadeois]

Tradition is not written by the word of God.

Is like when you go to court.
People can say things, a lot of things that happened, but if they can not be proven then, can we trust them?

Is hear say. Does not have firm ground. Anybody can invent anything, like the Devil has done and those of weak mind have fallen in his demonic web.

Do we trust what Jesus said about traditions. They annul the commandments of His father.

Do we understand that?

 

[Landon Caeli]

First, it's not "from the same Tradition."

Second, it can be -- and was terribly unsafe, which is why the Reformation started.

Weren't the scriptures selected by clergymen, in the Church, many years after Christ's death and resurrection? That same Church institution later approved private revelations, by God, that were deemed unharmful to the faith as instructed by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the scriptures.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Weren't the scriptures selected by clergymen, in the Church, many years after Christ's death and resurrection? That same Church institution later approved private revelations, by God, that were deemed unharmful to the faith as instructed by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the scriptures.

No.

 

[AngelOf Laodicea]

How do we know that God will not reveal more or make clarifications outside the bible?

Education is fine and dandy. So is prohecy.
But doctrine is from Scripture because we can rely on it and it has been proven time and time again

 

[Albion]

Weren't the scriptures selected by clergymen, in the Church, many years after Christ's death and resurrection?

Yes, but for a reason. And these clergymen didn't write or discover them. It's not as though they are accepted by us Christians merely because some council of Christian leaders decided to go with these writings.

That same Church institution later approved private revelations, by God, that were deemed unharmful to the faith as instructed by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the scriptures.

So? They can make a mistake. That was corrected.

If the point is that the institutional church chose the Bible books, that's not true. The people did that long before the canonization occurred. And there's nothing infallible about those councils. Even the EO and RC churches that say that the Church is or can be infallible say that those particular councils are not among the Ecumenical Councils (whose decisions deemed to be infallible for that reason).

 

[AngelOf Laodicea]

How do you know that a tradition is inspired by God if God has not set it in order?

 

[Albion]

Again, a point well worth making. Prophesy is supposed to make something known, but a revision of the faith is not included!