Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Albion said:

If traditions are not Tradition, then the sole verse in the Bible--and the one that is always resorted to by supporters of Holy Tradition--which says anything about the importance of holding to certain, but not all, traditions...does not apply. And that means that Holy Tradition is invalid.

Click to expand...

Considering that capitals and punctuation were not used in writing scripture, how would you know that? There is a distinction between the traditions Paul is talking about, and practices. Paul didn't write about junk, but what was necessary for the Church to keep going. So your opinion is just that, an opinion, and a minority one, at that.

Root of Jesse said:

Considering that capitals and punctuation were not used in writing scripture, how would you know that?

Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of capitalization. The traditions referred to in that verse are unknown to us. They could be church festivals, regular attendance at synagogue, or any number of other practices that should be maintained. But they are not a mechanism for creating new doctrine out of folklore or opinion (Holy Tradition).

fhansen said:

I guess I could just respond with, 'Yes, it would be', but instead maybe you could explain what the difference is. You seemed to be suggesting that a difference in case: tradition vs Tradition, is relevant, while the complete absence of a term altogether: 'Trinity' in this instance, is not.

Click to expand...

Is that the same as "high church and "low church" traditions? Is the RCC a "high church?.


I saw those terms quoted on another thread:

.....But when I go to church, I just do not like the low church tradition.
There seem to be many people, especially around where I live, who thrive on the low church tradition. Granted, Low church is better than No church, but it inspires me to travel one hour out of town to find the high church tradition and worship there........

Click to expand...

Albion said:

It isn't a matter of capitalization. The traditions referred to in that verse are unknown to us. They could be church festivals, regular attendance at synagogue, or any number of other practices that should be maintained. But they are not a mechanism for creating new doctrine out of folklore or opinion (Holy Tradition).

Click to expand...

I understand that that's what you believe, but I also know what we believe. First, Sacred Tradition is not folklore or opinion. It is supported by Scripture and gives context to Scripture. And lastly, the Church has always taught that St. Paul was talking about the doctrines of the Church, and not folklore or practices. Just because you (your denomination) removed yourselves from that teaching doesn't mean that the teaching has changed.

AnticipateHisComing said:

Paul wrote, means it is not an oral tradition.

Click to expand...

What did Paul teach? Oral Tradition. Sacred Tradition.

I have asked, and yet received a tradition necessary for salvation, that is not in scripture. Of course it is obvious why none have been provided. If there was one, that would mean those of some denominations that don't hold to your traditions would not be going to heaven.

Click to expand...

OK, here you go: What is meant by John 6, where Jesus tells us "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you." ? Sacred Tradition tells us that that is really Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity in our Eucharist. And that, my friend, is necessary for salvation.
Another is the definition of what Sacred Scripture is-the table of contents of the Bible. Another is the doctrine of the Trinity. None of those are strictly scriptural, yet they are part of our faith, coming from Sacred Tradition.

Root of Jesse said:

I understand that that's what you believe, but I also know what we believe.

Click to expand...

Well of course. The exchange has been over the relative merits of each sides views. I think we more or less know where the two sides stand.

First, Sacred Tradition is not folklore or opinion.

Click to expand...

If there was some misunderstanding about that, let me correct it. Holy Tradition is not folklore, but it creates dogma on the basis of folklore, custom, or opinion.

It is supported by Scripture and gives context to Scripture.

Click to expand...

It might...but often it does not. And it doesn't necessarily even rely upon tradition, either, but just something from the past, whether or not there is a real tradition of it being believed continuously by the people of God.

And lastly, the Church has always taught that St. Paul was talking about the doctrines of the Church, and not folklore or practices.

Click to expand...

Always? Whether or not that is true, what matters is whether or not that is a correct understanding of the meaning of the verse. It really cannot be.

The Word of God is the Word of God; the bible is a canonical text written by men, and (potentially) inspired by God.

I say potentially because I would have to be a fool to ignore historical hijacking of the Christianity Christ and Peter were developing.

God gaurantees that His law will be written on our hearts so that no one will have to ask. Christ says we will have a comforter. Technically, you do not need the bible (yes, I said it.)

We need God's Word - Christ - not a canonical text written by men and "carried" by those focused only on ecumenical power and influence.

The only "Word of God" is the Living Entity known as Christ. Any other created thing is incomparable, and God doesn't need the help of scribes and printing to get His word across the right way.

Kaon said:

The Word of God is the Word of God; the bible is a canonical text written by men, and (potentially) inspired by God.

I say potentially because I would have to be a fool to ignore historical hijacking of the Christianity Christ and Peter were developing.

God gaurantees that His law will be written on our hearts so that no one will have to ask. Christ says we will have a comforter. Technically, you do not need the bible (yes, I said it.)

We need God's Word - Christ - not a canonical text written by men and "carried" by those focused only on ecumenical power and influence.

The only "Word of God" is the Living Entity known as Christ. Any other created thing is incomparable, and God doesn't need the help of scribes and printing to get His word across the right way.

Click to expand...

I don't really have anything to add. But sometimes quoting others can come in handy.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Is that the same as "high church and "low church" traditions? Is the RCC a "high church?.


I saw those terms quoted on another thread:

Click to expand...

No, the high and low Church traditions have to do with how closely churches remained using liturgies similar to the RCC mainly. Do they retain sacraments and ritual, etc? The upper case Tradition, aka "Sacred Tradition" has to do with teachings and beliefs that the church has kept throughout her history from the beginning, that complement and support Scripture. As such, Tradition is said to also contain the Word of God, just in unwritten form. Small "t" traditions are simply those practices that have no relevance to salvation and can be changed.

Root of Jesse said in post #1606:

OK, here you go: What is meant by John 6, where Jesus tells us "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you." ? Sacred Tradition tells us that that is really Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity in our Eucharist. And that, my friend, is necessary for salvation. Another is the definition of what Sacred Scripture is-the table of contents of the Bible. Another is the doctrine of the Trinity. None of those are strictly scriptural, yet they are part of our faith, coming from Sacred Tradition.

Click to expand...

Regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, note that sola scriptura shows that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And He is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when He was not. He has always existed. He is YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He is YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set His feet on the Mount of Olives at His return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).

Just as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the three distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son, and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).

Root of Jesse said in post #1606:

What is meant by John 6, where Jesus tells us "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you." ?

Click to expand...

What is meant is what is said.

That is, sola scriptura shows in John 6:53-57 that all Christians, for their ultimate salvation, must eat the bread of Communion (Matthew 26:26), and drink the wine of Communion (Matthew 26:27-29), which actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27-30), in some spiritual manner (John 6:63).

"Discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29) means that when Christians partake of Communion (1 Corinthians 11:23-29), they must discern that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ (John 6:53-56) in some spiritual manner (John 6:63), or they may suffer the consequences, even in the here and now (1 Corinthians 11:30).

Kaon said in post #1608:

The only "Word of God" is the Living Entity known as Christ.

Click to expand...

Note that the Bible is also the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4), and it is in no way dead.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick [alive], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This is because the Bible is the sword of God's Holy Spirit:

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God . . .

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

One of Satan's prime aims is to get people to reject all or parts of God's Word, and start believing something else which sounds better to them as humans (Genesis 3:1-6, Matthew 16:21-23; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3-4), but which cannot save their souls, so that they will end up suffering in fire and brimstone with Satan and his fallen angels forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11).

Christian faith must not be based solely on heart feelings, which can be very deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12), but must be also a rational/intellectual enterprise. For saving faith requires mental assent (Philippians 3:15-16, Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25, Romans 8:6) to Biblical doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 John 1:9-10; 1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 1:9), and continuing to remember that doctrine (1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Peter 3:1-2; 2 Corinthians 11:3).

For example, in order for people to be saved from hell, they must believe (and continue to believe to the end: Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2) the Biblical doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 20:31, John 3:36, 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins, and physically resurrected from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

AnticipateHisComing said in post #1611:

Does you doctrine of the Trinity insist on the Athanasian Creed? Do you really think all that don't profess that creed are going to hell?

Click to expand...

Do you mean that the Athanasian Creed goes beyond the Bible? If so, point out how, so we can look at that.

Or, do you mean that belief in the Trinity per se is not required for salvation?

If so, note that Christians must believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. And Christians must not encourage those who claim to be Christians, yet deny the Biblical doctrine regarding Jesus Christ (2 John 1:7-11). Denying the doctrine of the full-divinity of Jesus is a serious problem, just as serious as denying the doctrine that He remains fully human, now and forever in the flesh (2 John 1:7, Luke 24:39, Hebrews 7:24-26, Hebrews 2:17; 1 Timothy 2:5). For denying either the full-divinity or the full-humanity of Jesus denies His ability to save us sinful humans from hell. For Jesus' human suffering during His Passion had to satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46).

That is, Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion was sufficient to forgive the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2), because Jesus is not only a human, but also God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28). His soul is infinite, and so the suffering of His soul (Isaiah 53:11, KJV) was infinite in amount, even though it was not infinite in duration. And so His suffering could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46). Because humans who are not God have finite souls, in order for them to suffer an infinite amount for their sins they must suffer over an infinite duration of time (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11, Mark 9:46).

Every human has sinned (Romans 3:23), except Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15b; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But because Jesus suffered for sins (1 Peter 3:18, Isaiah 53:11, KJV) an infinite amount, when elect people repent from their sins, and believe in Jesus' human/divine sacrifice, they can have their past sins forgiven (Romans 3:25-26, Matthew 26:28), while God the Father's justice remains fully satisfied by Jesus' suffering for their sins (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18).

No! it would not....

A lot of people didn't agree with the Apostles when they taught that Jesus is the Messiah. They didn't see Jesus in the Scriptures when Jesus and the Apostles pointed out the Scriptural evidence. They too were Sola Scriptura.

.

Eloy Craft said:

A lot of people didn't agree with the Apostles when they taught that Jesus is the Messiah. They didn't see Jesus in the Scriptures when Jesus and the Apostles pointed out the Scriptural evidence. They too were Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

Once again, Sola Scriptura does not guarantee that every reader will understand Scripture. For that matter, neither does following Tradition or a religious guru instead.

The issue with Sola Scriptura is solely this: WHAT IS the AUTHORITY, the final word, the deciding information, when it comes to defining essential doctrine?

Albion said:

Once again, Sola Scriptura does not guarantee that every reader will understand it.

For that matter, neither does following Tradition or a religious guru, instead. The issue with Sola Scriptura is concerned solely with WHAT IS the authority when it comes to defining essential doctrine.

Click to expand...

I didn't argue that at all. That's a given, and if I may say it's a strawman of my position. Bringing up Tradition is another form of logical fallacy. As far as a religious guru goes, what else have you got to follow if Scriptures are the sole authority?

I think I would be rather dull to think 'anyone' could understand scriptures without hearing it from someone they accepted as an authority.


Authority is precisely the issue. The Scriptures are authoritative. That's not the same as an authority. The Scriptures cannot be what IS authority. Authority requires a human agent. The Scriptures are just a book of words unless someone is an authority on what the words mean. On a desert island a stranded person who never heard of Jesus comes across a bible. Is it the sole authority? No, because there is no one on the island to exercise authority and use it as an authoritative tool for teaching. Here is an example of what I mean from....Scriptures!

Acts 17

That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas off to Beroea; and when they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, including not a few Greek women and men of high standing.

You see the Bereans were more receptive than the Thessalonians. What did the Bereans receive? The Teaching of the Apostles from which the Apostolic Tradition and the written Tradition flow.

Now the Thessalonians were not receptive of the human agents that exercised Authority from Christ. The Scriptures are a cross reference and if they don't accept the authority handed down from Christ they are relying on their own interpretation of Scriptures. The Bereans didn't do that, they accepted the authority of Paul to teach what the scriptures mean. They did not practice Sola Scriptura.

Acts 8
Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?

Do you notice who sends Philip? Do you notice that the eunuch is not sola scriptura? Do the Scriptures alone have authority to teach? Do preachers who teach that the Holy Spirit guides them all agree on what scriptures mean? If Scriptures were the sole authority no one today would have the slightest idea what they mean.

Eloy Craft said:

I didn't argue that at all. That's a given.

Click to expand...

Not only is it not "a given." It's not even correct.