Sola scriptura or ECF-like traditions of man? Christ in Mark 7

[GingerBeer]

So many new threads recently turning from scripture and insisting that traditions of man

Isn't "sola scriptura" a doctrine of men? I never saw the words "sola scriptura" in the scriptures. I Never saw the doctrine behind "sola scriptura" in the scriptures. Perhaps you can write down exactly what doctrine of sola scriptura you are using for the idea in the topic title?

 

[redleghunter]

You are just based your idea on a modernistic take of Church History (well, nit as Modernistic as Liberals believe).

I believe even a Traditional Catholic view of tradition goes back to Cardinal Newman.

 

[GingerBeer]

"All scripture given by inspiration from God AND to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16 said at a time when they had both NT writings and OT scripture

The quote from 2 Timothy is about the scriptures that Timothy knew from his childhood as he was taught by his mother. Those scriptures are old testament scriptures, probably in Greek translation since Timothy was a Greek speaker. The passage ought to be read a little more fully.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:14-17​

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is divine revelation as opposed to something that is considered true only because it has stood the test of time and been widely accepted (tradition). The Bible itself testifies to its nature and origin.

I would not deny it is divine revelation, I only would add that Jesus himself is the foundation being the very word of God. In your goal to make the bible a self-sufficient book I think what you end up doing is deflating Jesus and who he is. The Gospel in it's fullness was expressed in Christ himself, not in John writing the final letter of the book of revelation.

So what does this mean? If the Apostles immediately after the ascension of Jesus had access to the truth independent of the New Testament and it was in no way lacking, what sense does it make to speak about the bible in the way you are, as if it comes first before all and is a Quranic like book?

This is not to deny scripture's authority and we should side with it above what men say. Yet the whole tradition vs scripture dichotomy is lacking when I simply look at the nature of the Christian faith itself. The bible I do not find testifying to itself at least insofar as a unified canon. That was the work of the Church that had received these texts and canonized them.

So when you suggest the tradition is something which has only stood the test of time, instead of being something that has always been present within the Church community guiding us even when there was no New Testament, I simply have to disagree. There is no meaningful dichotomy between scripture and tradition that leads us to look at Protestants and say they are any different. You have your own tropes and traditions you are adamant about that aren't strictly biblical but are based off of an interpretation.

 

[miggles]

i think traditions that developed after Christ are the important ones.

 

[Crosstian]

"Mark" was never in the original documents.

You know this how exactly? You have the originals on hand to compare? Please, that would be an announcement to make to the world.

Here is the 'early' (so called) evidence for the mss, including Mark.

How many Mark 1:1-* do you see?

Gospel manuscripts.

In the one codex (Sinaiticus, not actually 4th cent.) it plainly says KATA MARKON in the upper part of the codice - Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Mark |

So, while not "in the text" (ie verses), it is on the Codice itself, which would be a copying from that which came before it. You are vainly assuming it was not in the originals, of which you do not have, have never seen, but in the copies we do have, it is on the codice, and other mss.

Tradition? No.

You say Mark wrote it because of Tradition.

Not at all. You simply are unaware of the actual evidence we do have in mss, codice, etc.

 

[JohnAshton]

Scripture, prayer, teachings of the Fathers, and traditions are the proper sources of Christian identity and authority.

 

[Not David]

That's not a Christian doctrine .

And the seat of Moses is mentioned in Scripture anyway (Matthew 23:1-2)

It is not mentioned on the Old Testament

 

[Not David]

Sola does not mean supreme.

Nowhere does it say it is the only *insert word*.

 

[Not David]

You know this how exactly? You have the originals on hand to compare? Please, that would be an announcement to make to the world.

Here is the 'early' (so called) evidence for the mss, including Mark.

How many Mark 1:1-* do you see?

Gospel manuscripts.

In the one codex (Sinaiticus, not actually 4th cent.) it plainly says KATA MARKON in the upper part of the codice - Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Mark |

So, while not "in the text" (ie verses), it is on the Codice itself, which would be a copying from that which came before it. You are vainly assuming it was not in the originals, of which you do not have, have never seen, but in the copies we do have, it is on the codice, and other mss.

Tradition? No.

Not at all. You simply are unaware of the actual evidence we do have in mss, codice, etc.

St. Mark never mentioned himself there.

 

[Not David]

I believe even a Traditional Catholic view of tradition goes back to Cardinal Newman.

I consider Medieval Roman Theology as part of modernism and rationalism.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So many new threads recently turning from scripture and insisting that traditions of man are all that matters...

I'd have to go with the ECF over a 16th century tradition of men called 'Sola Scriptura'.

 

[ripple the car]

The entire process of writing, receiving, compiling, verifying the authorship of, ordering, discerning, and canonizing Scripture came about through the Church. So indeed, yes, Sacred Scripture is something given us by the Church.

We were never meant to use Scripture alone, or even primarily, as a guide for Christian life and thought, as a contrast for the prayers, devotions, liturgies, theology, practices, beliefs, and conclusions given us by those same Christians who helped us get the Bible.

 

[Christ is Lord]

The Lord never mentioned "Sola Scriptura".

He never mentioned “Trinity” either. But the concept of the Trinity is taught in scripture.

 

[Crosstian]

St. Mark never mentioned himself there.

Did you read what I said? I already said "Mark" is not "in the text" itself (iow verses), but was in the Heading, in Sinaiticus.

Here it is again in Alexandrinus (Codex A):

Wayback Machine

It is also in Codex Bezae (Codex D):

University of Cambridge

 

[redleghunter]

Scripture, prayer, teachings of the Fathers, and traditions are the proper sources of Christian identity and authority.

They are all equal in weight?

 

[redleghunter]

It is not mentioned on the Old Testament

That’s because the OT testifies to the seat of Moses. Jesus did not say the Scribes and Pharisees rightfully sat in the seat of Moses.

 

[redleghunter]

He never mentioned “Trinity” either. But the concept of the Trinity is taught in scripture.

One only needs to look at what Jesus told the apostles after His Resurrection reference the Scriptures:

Luke 24: NASB


44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.48“You are witnesses of these things.49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

 

[Not David]

He never mentioned “Trinity” either. But the concept of the Trinity is taught in scripture.

Trinity is present but Sola Scriptura isn't.

 

[Not David]

Did you read what I said? I already said "Mark" is not "in the text" itself (iow verses), but was in the Heading, in Sinaiticus.

Here it is again in Alexandrinus (Codex A):

Wayback Machine

It is also in Codex Bezae (Codex D):

University of Cambridge

The heading was added.