Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

[BobRyan]

We disagree. Sacred Tradition was not condemned, tradition was condemned.

I am not a Catholic - I argue that much of what you call "sacred tradition" is in fact error. But that does not mean that you do not call it "Sacred Tradition".

You are not a Jew. You argue that much of what the Jewish Magesterium taught in Mark 7:6-13 was in fact "error' but they argue that it was 'sacred tradition' -- you as an outsider to their church - differ.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


The point remains -- this is their so-called 'sacred tradition' getting hammered sola scriptura.

Wrong. What was their error was that the Pharisees kept the rules to the letter of the law, but not to the spirit of the law.

So it is "wrong" that they were "wrong" and that Jesus pointed that out from the actual Bible??

And the proof that it is wrong to think they were wrong when Jesus said the Bible shows them to be wrong -- is that they were 'keeping the rules to the letter of the law".

Which is not a statement found anywhere in the entire quote of scripture we are reading.

Shall we all just "make stuff up" as our "source text"???

The Broadway show "Fiddler on the Roof" laments the disappearance of tradition.

you might want to ask some actual Jews on this board - if it is true that there is no Jewish tradition.

Their Sacred Tradition is their interpretation of Scripture

Same thing everyone says about the RCC.

Purgatory,
Indulgences,
Prayers to the dead.
Mary sinless like Christ,

 

[Erose]

Christ. "it is written". Don't believe He ever considered tradition authoritative. Do you have Him quoting tradition of any kind as on par with "it is written"? Even against the so-called pillars (priests, high priest, elders) He still held to "it is written".

We have him stating Divine Doctrine that wasn't in the Old Testament, do we not? Where in the OT does it speak of the Chair of Moses? Where does it speak of that the Messiah was suppose to bring Manna, as was discussed in John 6? Where does it speak of in the OT that the Messiah was to be a Nazarene? Where is John's baptism in the OT?

 

[Erose]

Question: if jews followed traditions that were considered "sacred", does the Catholic church still follow those traditions?

Some. Prayer for the dead is one, of course that is also found in the 2nd Book of Maccabees. Veneration of previous Saints is another.

 

[Erose]

So many dispensations of the Hebrews that it's difficult to make blanket assessments... the Israelites, initially, were sola scriptura until the times of the Kings.

You have evidence of this?

Of course there was prophetic guidance at this time as well. During the time of the captivity, they received heathen instruction and traditions that then drove them deeper into apostasy and darkness until Jesus came to bring them back to the Light.

So what heathen traditions did the Jewish religion adopt?

It would seem, from the example of the Hebrews, that the further on gets from sola scriptura, without prophetic guidance, the further into darkness we go... until we could do the unimaginable... kill God.

Actually the example of the Hebrews shows that the further you get away from Divine Revelation you worse you get. Big difference there.

Anyway where in the OT does it teach Sola Scriptura?

 

[BobRyan]

Some. Prayer for the dead is one, of course that is also found in the 2nd Book of Maccabees. Veneration of previous Saints is another.

First of all -- 2 Mac is not in the Hebrew OT. it is Apocryphal even by Jerome's standard.
Secondly - 2 Mac does NOT contain "prayers TO the dead" - nor "communion WITH the Dead".
Thirdly - 2 Mac states clearly that IN the state of death - the prayers had no effect at all - it is only in view of the resurrection that they had any benefit -- according to the explicit statements in the text.
Fourthly - the DEAD in 2 Macc died in acts of pagan worship and idolatry - that even the RCC considers to be a mortal sin - and those who die with mortal sin do NOT go to purgatory - they go straight to hell according to RCC doctrine so the 2Mac example would be one of praying TO the wicked in hell if the RCC "communion with the DEAD" CCC958 -- were correct.

So nothing at all like speaking to the dead as if they hear you and can answer your prayers.

That has to be a "wake-up call" for someone. It would be for me if I were appealing to that 2 Macc case.

 

[Standing Up]

We have him stating Divine Doctrine that wasn't in the Old Testament, do we not? Where in the OT does it speak of the Chair of Moses? Where does it speak of that the Messiah was suppose to bring Manna, as was discussed in John 6? Where does it speak of in the OT that the Messiah was to be a Nazarene? Where is John's baptism in the OT?

Chair of Moses is like a metaphor; see Neh. 8:4-8.
Mannah is a symbol of Christ that awaited NT.
Nazarene is found in the OT as applied to Christ.

Point is still you've no reference to Christ quoting from tradition, rather than scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually I would say that Sola Scriptura is essentially a question about perception of authority. The Catholic Church freely admits that she has a set core of Doctrines, which we call the Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition, by which we interpret Scripture and guide our practices. Most Protestants, except maybe Lutherans and Anglicans, deny the fact that they have a faith tradition of their own, by which they interpret Scripture and guide their practices. The problem is every single Protestant denomination has its on Faith Tradition, it is just denied, because the word "tradition" has been made into a bad word due to Protestant apologetics.

This is a false statement. Sacred Tradition is the WHOLE Deposit of Faith, the full Public Revelation. Most of which is found in Scripture, but not all. In all reality even though Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is viewed as separate, Sacred Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition.

One other thing, there really is three sources of authority, not two. The other being the Magisterium, i.e. the body of Bishops. All three sources of authority are needed.

Well you started off right, but the last sentence is questionable. The Magisterium, which the pope is a member of, does not claim sole interpretation of Scripture. Private interpretation is quite acceptable, as long as it does not conflict with the teaching of the faith. In all reality, non-Catholic churches are not much different. Imagine if you will, if you start teaching a works based form of Justification in a Southern Baptist Church. What do you think would happen?

Yes you are finally starting to get it. Here is the thing. Jesus Christ didn't leave us a Bible did He? What did He leave us with? A Church.

Now one thing that you may be confused about is what does infallibility mean? Infallibility doesn't mean that whatever you say is true. Actually infallibility is a limitation, not a power. An infallible Church doesn't mean that it can teach whatever it wants and that you have to believe it. No an infallible Church means that it can only teach the truth, no matter how much it wants or not wants to. For example there are many many Catholics, including bishops, who wishes that the Church would change its position on things like abortion, artificial birth control, gay marriage, etc.; yet they keep coming across this big wall that they can't seem to get around so they can make these changes. The wall is, quite frankly, the Church can't, not that it wouldn't, but can't change its teachings concerning these questions.

At one time the majority of Christians, including the Emperor of the Roman Empire, were Arians; and that those who held to the Orthodox faith were the minority. But no matter how many they converted to their view, no matter who was converted, the Arians could not change the teaching of the Church. It couldn't, because of that wall. And now, Arianism in its pure form is no more, except for sects like the JW; and the Catholic Church still teaches the orthodox view of the Trinity. Something to think about.

Well a couple of things. The Rebels had to reject the infallible Church. If they didn't it would be kind of hard to rebel wouldn't it? How many people could they have swayed to their side if their selling point was "hey the Church is infallible, but we are going to go against it anyway, so who is with us!" I think the Protestant Rebellion would have ended much differently. So their problem fell to what can we claim as ultimate authority? Well the teaching of Bible was the only thing that could be manipulated to say whatever they wanted. So that made perfect sense.

The point being is simple, there is no such thing as a Sola Scriptura church. It doesn't exist. Why? Because everyone reads Scripture through the lens of their faith tradition, or someone else's faith tradition. The only way I could buy the idea of Sola Scriptura is that if every church that taught this as doctrine, had at the end of the day, the exact same set of core beliefs. Maybe practices were different, some outlying doctrines; but the exact same set of core beliefs.

You know what I find interesting is that there is this thing called the "5 Solas" right? That every Protestant is suppose to believe, which would provide the core beliefs. The problem is, that Protestants can't even agree on what these five Solas actually mean. Sola Scriptura is nice in theory; but in practical terms falls flat on its face.

Your tome might be fine and dandy, if church were merely a human exercise, but it's not.

We have God speaking to humanity via the Scriptures. Adding extra words to God, via so-called oral traditions, has been a great avenue by which the devil has led souls like the pied piper to their hell.
Seeking to maintain power, the Roman church came up with a whole slew of fabrications and stories designed to crush any person who dared to question the leaders. Having success in destroying all who called for the Scriptures to inform traditions and enforcing the exclusive view that maintained traditions over Scripture, God gave His blessing to Reformers who called men back to being like the Church in Berea who diligently read the scriptures and required of Paul an answer for his faith. God, by His Sovereign will brought the power of His word back to people just as He had brought His word back to King Josiah. It was the Scriptures that brought a sharp, two edged sword to the heart convicted of sin.
The Roman church had gone down a path that had cast the Scriptures to the back of the sanctuary as it used traditions to enslave humans and hide the word of God from men. God would tolerate such abuse no longer and called His elect to reform the pagan idol worshipping Roman church back to His word as the only source of truth. Thankfully there is a remnant in the Roman church who follow God's word over the pagan popes. Thankfully some have been truly born again, despite the massive apostasy of the leaders in the Roman church.

Sola Scriptura

 

[Erose]

Chair of Moses is like a metaphor; see Neh. 8:4-8.

That passage speaks nothing of the Chair of Moses, so where in the OT does it refer to the Chair of Moses?

Mannah is a symbol of Christ that awaited NT.

It is? Where is it located in the OT?

Nazarene is found in the OT as applied to Christ.

Where?

Point is still you've no reference to Christ quoting from tradition, rather than scripture.

Considering you can't answer these simple questions, the ball is still in your court.

 

[Erose]

Your tome might be fine and dandy, if church were merely a human exercise, but it's not.

Your right it is a God exercise. On this we can agree.

We have God speaking to humanity via the Scriptures.

Actually we have God speaking to humanity through His Prophets and then His Son.

Adding extra words to God, via so-called oral traditions, has been a great avenue by which the devil has led souls like the pied piper to their hell.

Yep, we call that the Protestant Rebellion.

Seeking to maintain power, the Roman church came up with a whole slew of fabrications and stories designed to crush any person who dared to question the leaders. Having success in destroying all who called for the Scriptures to inform traditions and enforcing the exclusive view that maintained traditions over Scripture, God gave His blessing to Reformers who called men back to being like the Church in Berea who diligently read the scriptures and required of Paul an answer for his faith. God, by His Sovereign will brought the power of His word back to people just as He had brought His word back to King Josiah. It was the Scriptures that brought a sharp, two edged sword to the heart convicted of sin.

Hum. A couple of errors here. When St. Paul was evangelizing the people in Berea, they were not a Church but a Synagogue of Jews.

What part of knowing who you evangelize and using what you share in common to get your message across? Have you not read the rest of Act Ch 17? When St. Paul was evangelizing the Athens, who were Gentiles, did he at any time quote Scripture to them? No he did not. Why? Because they wouldn't have cared one way or another what Scripture would have said. Rather he used in his evangelizing a statue of an unknown god, and the Greek poets.

See how that works? The Jews of Berea are not evidence, and never has been evidence of Sola Scriptura. What they are evidence of is St. Paul's incredible skill of using that which was familiar to evangelize his audience.

I'm not say that what the Bereans did was wrong, what they did using Scripture to fact check what St. Paul said, was definitely the right way to go about it, especially if you are convinced that Scripture is the Word of God. I use Scripture all the time to fact check what one says, it is part of what we should do as Christians. Here on this board there is one thing we have in common, and that is we all recognized the authority of Scripture, and as such here we have to a certain point a common point.

One thing I don't do here is use the books that the Protestants threw out of Scripture, to debate with, because these are not accepted by most Protestants. So for me to quote the book of Sirach, would be a waste of time. This is what St. Paul shows in Chapter 17. Use that which the people you are evangelizing are familiar with.

The Roman church had gone down a path that had cast the Scriptures to the back of the sanctuary as it used traditions to enslave humans and hide the word of God from men. God would tolerate such abuse no longer and called His elect to reform the pagan idol worshipping Roman church back to His word as the only source of truth. Thankfully there is a remnant in the Roman church who follow God's word over the pagan popes. Thankfully some have been truly born again, despite the massive apostasy of the leaders in the Roman church.

What an ignorant statement. You know it is these types of statements that makes me ask the question why some denominations feel the need to lie to their congregation about history to demonize another group of Christians.

Sola Scriptura

One of the greatest inventions of the Devil.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

sola scriptura... One of the greatest inventions of the Devil.

Yes, relying only on the sure word of God is evil whereas relying on man's wisdom and tradition is Divine... sounds right doesn't it?

You know someone's indoctrinated when they make statements like this...

 

[Erose]

Same thing everyone says about the RCC.

Purgatory,
Indulgences,
Prayers to the dead.
Mary sinless like Christ,

Yeah, the difference is we don't deny the fact. For some reason many of you do.

 

[Erose]

Yes, relying only on the sure word of God is evil whereas relying on man's wisdom and tradition is Divine... sounds right doesn't it?

You know someone's indoctrinated when they make statements like this...

The problem is you don't rely on Scripture, but rather someone's interpretation of it. Sola Scriptura doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work in practice. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. It just can't be helped.

 

[Standing Up]

That passage speaks nothing of the Chair of Moses, so where in the OT does it refer to the Chair of Moses?

Ex. 18:13
And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.

In Nehemiah, it is the same sense of authority to interpret.

It is? Where is it located in the OT?

Jn. 6:33
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Where?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(title)

So still, there's nothing from Christ that quotes tradition as authoritative, rather He says "it is written".

 

[Erose]

First of all -- 2 Mac is not in the Hebrew OT. it is Apocryphal even by Jerome's standard.

First of all, your right, it is not in the current Hebrew OT. Rather is is found in the Christian OT.

Secondly

- 2 Mac does NOT contain "prayers TO the dead" - nor "communion WITH the Dead".

Your right, and I never made that claim. I made the claim of prayers and sacrifices FOR the dead. There isn't a formal prayer for the dead in 2 Mac, so for that point since we are speaking of what has carried over from the Jews, we see their practices at the time.

Thirdly

- 2 Mac states clearly that IN the state of death - the prayers had no effect at all - it is only in view of the resurrection that they had any benefit -- according to the explicit statements in the text.

Perhaps you need to really think this point through, first. In what way would sacrifices for the dead have benefit for the dead, and how would they effect the person's resurrection?

Fourthly

- the DEAD in 2 Macc died in acts of pagan worship and idolatry - that even the RCC considers to be a mortal sin - and those who die with mortal sin do NOT go to purgatory - they go straight to hell according to RCC doctrine so the 2Mac example would be one of praying TO the wicked in hell if the RCC "communion with the DEAD" 958 -- were correct.

Actually it doesn't make that claim whatsoever, rather it makes the claim that they possessed pagan religious trinkets, that they took off the dead bodies of fallen enemy. It never once claims that these men worshiped idols. Perhaps the trinkets had some value to them, I don't know. That being said, the Church and even then Judas, did not make any claims to the status of the dead. That is one thing the Catholic Church will never state, who is in hell. I have quite a few relatives that I pray for, who didn't lead a very good life in my opinion; but I'm not going to make the judgement on the current state of their souls. So I pray for them.

So nothing at all like speaking to the dead as if they hear you and can answer your prayers.

Never made the claim.

That has to be a "wake-up call" for someone. It would be for me if I were appealing to that 2 Macc case.

Why would it be. You have twisted the post, and nothing more.

 

[Standing Up]

The problem is you don't rely on Scripture, but rather someone's interpretation of it. Sola Scriptura doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work in practice. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. It just can't be helped.

You've established a strawman (interpretation) by which you attempt to knock over SS. Here's the definition of SS.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Nothing there about your strawman.

 

[Erose]

Ex. 18:13
And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.

In Nehemiah, it is the same sense of authority to interpret.

Still got nothing it seems.

Jn. 6:33
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

SU, the Gospel of John is in the NT not the OT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(title)

So still, there's nothing from Christ that quotes tradition as authoritative, rather He says "it is written".

Ok, so you got nothing.

I'm assuming you got nothing on John's baptism either.

Seriously just admit you got it wrong, and let us move on.

 

[Erose]

You've established a strawman (interpretation) by which you attempt to knock over SS. Here's the definition of SS.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Nothing there about your strawman.

Yeah, I know the definition of SS. The problem is that it never ever works, because you will always have the lens by which you will read Scripture. In a sense when it comes to SS, it is the lens by which you read and interpret Scripture that is really the supreme authority.

So in a way your right the definition of SS is in itself a strawman.

 

[Standing Up]

Yeah, I know the definition of SS. The problem is that it never ever works, because you will always have the lens by which you will read Scripture. In a sense when it comes to SS, it is the lens by which you read and interpret Scripture that is really the supreme authority.

So in a way your right the definition of SS is in itself a strawman.

Whether we have a lens or not doesn't matter. What matters is we agree to what we read. In this case Scripture.

Again, we can agree that your Magisterium is the authority, the only valid lens wearer/seer. Now, all it has to do is agree to use Scripture alone in coming to its conclusions about doctrine and practice.

 

[Standing Up]

Still got nothing it seems.

Moses sat

SU, the Gospel of John is in the NT not the OT.

News alert!

Ok, so you got nothing.

I'm assuming you got nothing on John's baptism either.

Seriously just admit you got it wrong, and let us move on.

John's baptism?

 

[Erose]

Moses sat

Yes he did, but where in the OT does it speak of the Chair of Moses as being passed down?

News alert!

Still nothing it seems. Guess you can finally admit that the prophecy that the Messiah was to bring Manna, isn't in the OT.

John's baptism?

Forgot that one did you?

Guess you gave up on finding the prophecy in the OT were Jesus was suppose to be a Nazarene. So can we now move on, and call this debate done, or are you going to keep trying?