Dealing with Sola Scriptura

[JacksLadder]

Its a symbiotic relationship. Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict.

They must go hand and hand else we are not completely in Christ.

Nevertheless, even though Tradition must never contradict Scripture it must ascend to Scripture which can be viewed as a product of Tradition.

I promised myself I wouldn't linger on here to late bro. I am logging and will check back tomorrow. Your search is in my prayers for you to find your definitive answer.

Peace.

Thanks me too I have to be up at 5:30 am..Thanks for the info

 

[shinbits]

what about verses in the Bible that are said to refute following religious tradition:

Matt 15:13:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?


Sola Scriptura advocates would say that this refutes that we are to follow Tradition over the Bible, since Jesus himself did it; and, that those who were following tradition were actually breaking the command of God, they way SS advocates say that Catholics do.

How to adress this?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I don't want to start any sort of debate on theology so I figured coming in here would be a good place to discuss this without any heat.

How do you deal with different bible verses that Sola Scriptura advocates use?

Such as:
2 Timothy 3:16-17?

That's what someone who is trying to get me away from Roman Catholicism posed to me. Also Hebrews 1:1-12

He said it proves that Scripture holds final authority.

How do you deal with those claims? Thanks

Please review carefully the following links:

The Canon of Scripture

&

Sola Scriptura

& for any Catholic refutations to Protestant Objections of a sundry array of Catholic beliefs, please do review this section: Defense of Catholicism

& do review these sites as well:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

&

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

the Holy Bible and Apostolic Tradition both come from God, as even the Sacred Scriptures are apart of Apostolic Tradition as what the holy Apostles handed down via their teaching....their "traditions" from the Latin, "traditio," meaning to "hand over, or hand down." Holy Writ and Apostolic Tradition both come from God and as such neither one can contradict one another.

Before the Holy Scriptures were formally "canonized," that it before the Holy Catholic Church by the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost decided what particular books belonged in the Canon of Holy Scripture, the list of what particular books where handed down, or "traditio," was part of "Apostolic Tradition."

And having the Holy Ghost promised unto her, the Holy Catholic Church merely handed down both the written portion of the Apostolic Tradition of the Apostles (essentially the written New Testament) and the Unwritten portion of Apostolic Tradition (those doctrines which the Apostles held, but were later attested to and written down by the apostles' disciples and succeeding generations.)

 

[kisstheson]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is beneficial for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16-17

My response to this argument is simple. It says that Scripture is useful for teaching, etc. It does not use the world sufficient. I might, for example, tell you that vegetables are beneficial for maintaining good health, but you certainly wouldn't take that to mean that vegetables are the only type of food you need to be healthy. You'd still eat fruits and grains and lean meats, etc. So why do people argue that saying that Scripture is "useful" for teaching, etc. equates to it being sufficient?
Also, the Scripture that this passage references is the Old Testament, not the writings we've come to know as the New Testament.
As for the verses from Hebrews, I have no idea how they're arguing that it proves sola scriptura. It's talking about Jesus, not the Bible.

this sounds pretty reasonable. I think catholics need to understand that prots think of the Bible the way you think of the Eucharist. To them the Bible is very special and it feels like cathoilcs are saying, 'Scripture just isn't that important." If I said, "what's the big deal about the Eucharist" you would be hurt by that.

They look as such debates concerning "sola scripture" as almost like blasphemy. How can you put tradition above the Word of God is the reasoning.

This is very hard on prots when tradition seems to go against the Word. They lack the understanding that it doesn't.

Please remember to show our Protestant brothers and sisters compassion and understanding. If they keep pressing the issue and won't listen just change the subject.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

what about verses in the Bible that are said to refute following religious tradition:

Matt 15:13:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?


Sola Scriptura advocates would say that this refutes that we are to follow Tradition over the Bible, since Jesus himself did it; and, that those who were following tradition were actually breaking the command of God, they way SS advocates say that Catholics do.

How to adress this?

We don't follow Tradition "over" the Bible. So that's a problem right there. We follow Scripture in the light of Tradition and Magisterial teaching. The three are inseparable and are not, cannot be pitted against one another. Three is a neat number--just like we don't follow Jesus over the Father, or the Holy Spirit over Jesus...the Trinity is intertwined and we come to the fullness of knowledge by coming to the Father, through Jesus, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The same is true as we come to the fullness of Scripture, through Tradition, by the guidance of the Magisterium.

I previously wrote that if you want Scripture--there's 2 Thess. 2:15--"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. " But I think slinging Scripture back and forth, is really pointless--especially without a firm understanding of where Scripture comes from, how it was codified, and just what was really happening in the first centuries after Jesus before the canon was finalized 300 years later. Scripture itself is Tradition in action.

 

[InTheCloud]

All Scripture is God-breathed and is beneficial for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16-17

The world Alone is never there. Is just said Scripture is OK.

The problem is that all Scripture should undergo a selection process before is considered "God Breathed".

Pharisee Shuls followed masters to select the current Jewish canon. The Early Chruch selected the Christian canon.
Sola Scriptura is a logical imposibility. Is a tautology. Is saying, the Bible is Godbreathed because the Bible said so. And that means that the Bible somehow fall from the sky in her current adaptation. That is a historical lie.
The Bible existe because a Church has inspired to declare some writtings that tradition said were Godbreathed as Godbreathed.

 

[JacksLadder]

We follow Scripture in the light of Tradition and Magisterial teaching. The three are inseparable and are not, cannot be pitted against one another. Three is a neat number--just like we don't follow Jesus over the Father, or the Holy Spirit over Jesus...the Trinity is intertwined and we come to the fullness of knowledge by coming to the Father, through Jesus, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The same is true as we come to the fullness of Scripture, through Tradition, by the guidance of the Magisterium.

That makes sense. I keep running into Catholics online who seem to say Tradition is over scripture when scripture is the Traditions of the apostles as verified by the early church.

 

[JoabAnias]

That makes sense. I keep running into Catholics online who seem to say Tradition is over scripture when scripture is the Traditions of the apostles as verified by the early church.

Thats either a misconception, misperception or over compensation.

The Catholic teaching is that they are equal and intrinsically intertwined and inseparable.

Thats what it means to say they cannot contradict.

Wish I had more time for this thread today. It was interesting but alas, gotta run.

Your a good researcher bro, you will find the straight and narrow, I am sure of it.

 

[CruciFixed]

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head

Can someone tell me what that means?

 

[CruciFixed]

St .Pius X:
Thanks for the pages. I'm reading them now! Very good information!

 

[G-Com]

Here's the thing that shoots Sola Scriptura full of holes:

Preaching preceded Scripture. And since there was no such thing as Sacred Scripture for a couple of centuries after Christ ascended and the Apostles lived, how could the concept of Sola Scriptura even exist?

 

[CruciFixed]

Good thinking.

 

[kisstheson]

Here's the thing that shoots Sola Scriptura full of holes:

Preaching preceded Scripture. And since there was no such thing as Sacred Scripture for a couple of centuries after Christ ascended and the Apostles lived, how could the concept of Sola Scriptura even exist?

But there was the Torah and the Prophets for Messianic Jews, at least.

 

[G-Com]

Also:

There were writings as early as 25 or so years after Christ's Acension, but nothing called "the Bible."

The Gospels came probably about 70 A.D. Or at least Mark did. Acts was probably written by the same author as Luke, meaning it came later. The earliest New Testament writings were probably Romans and Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians.

But the Apostles probably weren't reading from any writings.

Sola Scriptura is so easily refutable.

Sola Fide ("faith alone") is probably even easier to refute. If you know what Martin Luther did to the New Testament and how he justified it, then you've refuted it.

 

[G-Com]

But there was the Torah and the Prophets for Messianic Jews, at least.

But the stuff Jesus was preaching (i.e., "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek " were not in them were they?

 

[CruciFixed]

But the people who want me to avoid Roman Catholicism are more John Calvin's teaching leaning types than Martin Luther.

So does Martin and John share the same belief about Sola Fide?

 

[G-Com]

But the people who want me to avoid Roman Catholicism are more John Calvin's teaching leaning types than Martin Luther.

Calvin, Zwingli, Tynedale, Wycliffe... none of them were in unanimity when it came to theology. How many hundreds of Protestant denominations are there? I've heard a conservative estimate of 30,000. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

The word "Christian" was first used in Antioch c. 60 A.D. Coincidentally, the Greek word "katholikos" was also first used in Antioch by Iranaeus c. 107. Does that word sound familiar?

The Protestant "Reformation" began over 1,300 years later.

Do the math.

So does Martin and John share the same belief about Sola Fide?

Martin Luther invented it. He rewrote Romans 3:28 ("For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law") to say that only faith matters and works by putting the word "alone" between "faith" and "apart."

In regards to critics of his translation, Luther replied:

"I also know that in Romans 3, the word 'solum' (alone) is not present in either Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that ...these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.' I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller's donkey for they have never tried it."

Luther also had issues with James and 2 Peter, both of which state that private interpretation of Scripture is wrong. He called the Epistle of James "an Epistle of straw."

 

[JacksLadder]

Here's the thing that shoots Sola Scriptura full of holes:

Preaching preceded Scripture. And since there was no such thing as Sacred Scripture for a couple of centuries after Christ ascended and the Apostles lived, how could the concept of Sola Scriptura even exist?

The scriptures are the records of the life of Christ and the experiences of his apostles. To say there is no scripture is to say Jesus and his apostles never existed. The scriptures are the closest you can get to what the apostles experienced. To say otherwise is to say the Church made up the story of Jesus centuries later. The Scriptures are our only way now centuries upon centuries removed from Christ to validate the church which is why they are so important. The early church was rampant with heresies and needed to Canonize what every believer already knew, the story of Jesus the Good News to fight against the false beliefs and scriptures that were making their way into the church. If the Scriptures(Story of Jesus and the apostles) were not the foundation of the church then the church would not have needed the cannon in the first place.

 

[G-Com]

The scriptures are the records of the life of Christ and the experiences of his apostles. To say there is no scripture is to say Jesus and his apostles never existed.

There were a lot of writings. It took several councils, culminating with the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. under Pope Damasus I, to decide which writings were proper for the Bible and which weren't.

 

[JacksLadder]

There were a lot of writings. It took several councils, culminating with the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. under Pope Damasus I, to decide which writings were proper for the Bible and which weren't.

I do not see how this invalidates God's words as spoke through the aposltes written down and then finally cannonized hundreds of years later.