Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Hentenza]

sniff...sniff...smells like tradition...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The bible doesn't have a "proper" place in Holy Tradition, it transcends it. Only the bible is the authority. You have a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between scriptures and tradition. There is nothing wrong with tradition as long as it is biblical. When traditions deviate, as they have, then they are to be discarded. Jesus tried to teach the Pharisees that since tradition is easily corrupted.

First of all, Jesus was condemning the Pharisees because their priorities were messed up. They cared more about the little things than they did the more important things. Also, they were hypocrites, teaching one way and acting another.

Second, in no way did Jesus condemn all of tradition because of what he said to the pharisees. (Of course he didn't, because he oftened teached using traditions found outside of scripture). He is simply condemning the pharisees for placing the little things, like washing your hands before you eat, over more important things, like following the commandments. This is a clear warning for us not to forsake cleaning the inside of the jar, while cleaning only the outside. Certainly, Jesus had no issue with the act of washing the hands before eating by itself, but when elevated above much more important things, it becomes a problem.

Third, what Jesus said here has no bearing on NT Tradition (teachings which was given from Christ to the Apostles, which were taught and passed down, yet not fully explained in scripture).

Of course, I think many of the things that Christ chastized the pharisees for were their (t)raditions. These were things that, while perhaps being pious acts, were not doctrinal issues.

When we speak of tradition in this thread, we are mainly referring to (T)radition, those issues which are doctrinal, yet not fully taught/explained in scripture.

Everyone has little (t)raditions. Such an example would evangelical churches who have a board of trustees. Such a thing isn't prescribed by scripture, but isn't condemned either. No one would argue that this isn't a man-made tradition. Yet, at the same time, protestants chastize us for separating the roles between priests/bishops for practical purposes. Certainly, this is using a double-standard here.

Also, I take issue with the idea that "tradition is easily corrupted". Again, look at the last 2000 years, and look at the differences between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. There are many things we agree on, and they were part of the same body for 1000 years. Even after all this time, we still have 7 ecumenical councils in common, and many other things as well. It is important as well to note that the most important issues of the faith are the areas where we share the most in common, especially regarding the understanding of the sacraments. Also, one can look at other apostolic churches, like the Armenian Apostolic Church, the traditional Anglican Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and see that they are not all that far off from each other and share many similarities, again especially with regards to the things that matter.

Now look what has happened to protestantism in only a period of 500 years. How many thousands of sects have formed off of Luther's vision? Look at the disagreement between even the key aspects of the faith! How are we saved? Faith alone? Faith+works? Does baptism save? Is Christ in the eucharist? Are sacraments important at all? Was Jesus God? Is the Trinity important? Pretty much the only thing they agree on is that the bible is the sole authority of faith! Everything else is up for grabs. The proof is in the pudding, my friends.

 

[Hentenza]

When we speak of tradition in this thread, we are mainly referring to (T)radition, those issues which are doctrinal, yet not fully taught/explained in scripture.

Then they are not biblical and should be discarded. Is really that simple.

 

[Anoetos]

Then they are not biblical and should be discarded. Is really that simple.

Or simply be understood to be human constructs which, as long as they do not contradict Scripture, may be accepted or rejected as the Christian, in liberty, is led by his conscience, and yet which may in no way be used to bind other free consciences.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If it was referring to just the OT then the verse would have been explicit but is not by claiming that "ALL scripture......". Paul knew that he was writing scripture.

This is another "faith-based statement", see my post above concerning this.

 

[Hentenza]

This is another "faith-based statement", see my post above concerning this.

I did. It did not help. Prove to me that my statement is a "faith-based statement".

 

[Ortho_Cat]

When we speak of tradition in this thread, we are mainly referring to (T)radition, those issues which are doctrinal, yet not fully taught/explained in scripture.

Then they are not biblical and should be discarded. Is really that simple.

See my emphasis above. I did not say that our (T)raditions (and I am referring to the Orthodox Church here) are not scriptural, merely that they are not fully taught/explained in scripture.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I did. It did not help. Prove to me that my statement is a "faith-based statement".

show me some historical/biblical basis that Paul considered what he wrote to be "scripture", and more specifically, that he was including his own writings (or those of anyone else outside of the OT) in his reference to "scripture" in 2 Timothy.

 

[Hentenza]

See my emphasis above. I did not say that our (T)raditions (and I am referring to the Orthodox Church here) are not scriptural, merely that they are not fully taught/explained in scripture.

Brother, I believe that scripture has authority over your (or any) "T"raditions. The scriptures and "T"raditions are not co-authoritative nor is the bible part of "T"radition. The scriptures stand alone.

 

[Hentenza]

show me some historical/biblical basis that Paul considered what he wrote to be "scripture", and more specifically, that he was including his own writings (or those of anyone else outside of the OT) in his reference to "scripture" in 2 Timothy.

I did but you ignored it. Prove to me that "All scripture" only means the OT.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Brother, I believe that scripture has authority over your (or any) "T"raditions. The scriptures and "T"raditions are not co-authoritative nor is the bible part of "T"radition. The scriptures stand alone.

I understand this, and I appreciate your sincerity, but again to me this seems like another faith based statement with little support from history or the bible itself...I feel as if we may be at an impass here...

 

[Hentenza]

I understand this, and I appreciate your sincerity, but again to me this seems like another faith based statement with little support from history or the bible itself...I feel as if we may be at an impass here...

There is plenty of historical support. The bible itself claims authority.

We are at an impasse indeed.

 

[sunlover1]

Agreed, yes, but if we are able to discern the meaning of scripture individually (i.e. it is self-explanatory),

If? You do agree that we are the (many membered) Body of Christ, and I
assume you agree then that Jesus is the "Head" of the body of Christ.
So since we have the very mind OF Christ, and if God dwells IN us, His
church, then why could we not understand the words OF God?
That makes no sense on any level to be honest.

Or do you think that if I pray for discernment and understanding, that
God will say, "NO!" Because the Bible says opposite, see here:
5But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all
generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Who does that say to ask?
So... why not go ahead and ask Him!?



There is one caveat:
6But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is
like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7For that man
ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,
8being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

God bless you.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

There is plenty of historical support. The bible itself claims authority.

We are at an impasse indeed.

I haven't seen much if any case for a historical basis for SS in this thread (extra-biblical). Do you have any of those sources?

 

[sunlover1]

I haven't seen much if any case for a historical basis for SS in this thread (extra-biblical). Do you have any of those sources?

Irenaeus
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)
WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation,
than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us,
which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period,
by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures,
to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

 

[StThomasMore]

There is plenty of historical support. The bible itself claims authority.

We are at an impasse indeed.

it is an authority. But not the only authority. 1 Timothy 2:15 claims the authority of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. Hence the reading of scripture must be read in light of that pillar.

Irenaeus
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)
WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation,
than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us,
which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period,
by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures,
to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

I don't think Catholics deny that the scriptures are one of the grounds and pillars of truth

Are you sure you wanna use St. Irenaeus though? You know he condemns people who assemble in groups who are not in communion with the See of Rome. You need to read the rest of those chapters. Particularly chapter 3 from book 3.

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church(The Roman See), because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2

 

[sunlover1]

I don't think Catholics deny that the scriptures are one of the grounds and pillars of truth

Hmm, I think you're wrong and I think that Scripture says THE pillar and
ground of truth, not plural.
The church of the living God,.. which is the pillar and foundation (upholds)
of truth.
The Church is the upholder of truth, at least that's how I read it

Are you sure you wanna use St. Irenaeus though? You know he condemns people who assemble in groups who are not in communion with the See of Rome. You need to read the rest of those chapters. Particularly chapter 3 from book 3.

Not to be flippant, or to seem callous,... but I am not deeply moved by
what Iraneous believed. I posted in response to someones request.

Certainly there is some merit in studying their works, but it's only hearsay in the end, kwim?

God bless you.

 

[Hentenza]

I haven't seen much if any case for a historical basis for SS in this thread (extra-biblical). Do you have any of those sources?

Sure. You can start with the writings of the apostolic fathers (70-150 ce) view of scripture as the inspired word of God. See Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, Papias Exposition of the oracles of God, among others. You can continue with the ante-Nicene and Nicene father's view of scripture like Justin Martyr Apology where he calls the gospels "the voice of God' (chapter 65), Tatian;s Diatessaron which speaks about the authority of scripture, Irenaeus Against Heresies where he teaches that the apostles handed it down to us in the scriptures to be the pillar and ground of our faith, Clement of Alexandria "Stromata", Tertullian, Origen, etc etc etc.

I can keep going. Heck, Tertullian was adamant that the gospels where a precept.

 

[Hentenza]

it is an authority. But not the only authority. 1 Timothy 2:15 claims the authority of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. Hence the reading of scripture must be read in light of that pillar.

The scriptures have authority over the visible church which is the only way that the church can be the pillar and foundation of truth. Once a local church teaches unbiblically they are no longer the pillar and foundation of truth as has happened historically. "T"radition does not hold the same authority given the multiple variations of "T"radition among visible churches.

 

[Standing Up]

Does this mean you think Christ lied about the Church being led by the Spirit until His return? That the gates of hades will not prevail against it?

Jesus has the keys (Rev. 1:18). He opened the gates (Mt. 27:53). The gates do not prevail, regardless of our faithfulness or lack thereof, because of His finished work (Jn. 19:30). I believe that.

If we do not have the true Church, we do not have the faith preserved from the beginning. And that would be quite a travesty and would make Christ's work and teachings that He entrusted to the Apostles to hand down to the Church worthless. Why would God go through all of that just to have the Church fall apart?

The faith is simple. I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. That has endured, regardless of argument over filioque, papacy, mariology, baptism, eucharist, chants, candle colors, or anything else.

Where we differ is I also believe the warning about a falling away, grievous wolves entering in. We can look at history and see it happened. Some, like RC or EO, do not believe it, thinking they are the true Church, but God gives grace to the humble.