Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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
"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.
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.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 dont 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?
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
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.
But there was the Torah and the Prophets for Messianic Jews, at least.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 the stuff Jesus was preaching (i.e., "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek " were not in them were they?But there was the Torah and the Prophets for Messianic Jews, at least.
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.But the people who want me to avoid Roman Catholicism are more John Calvin's teaching leaning types than Martin Luther.
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."So does Martin and John share the same belief about Sola Fide?
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?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?