Defining sola scriptura.

[tadoflamb]

I'm glad we finally agree on the definition of Sola Scriptura. AND, finally, after nearly 10 years of insisting otherwise, that I didn't go back in time and pen it in 1577.

I wouldn't say I agree on the definition. If it is, it isn't' much of one. If anything, I'm more inclined to agree with More Coffee's assessment that it's the sola scripturist slogan.

I just wish you could have been more honest with us in stating what was yours and which belonged to the LCMS. My hunch is confirmed now, that you are the author (with the exception of 17 words) of your lengthy explanation. A simple link to the document, which was asked for many times, would have alleviated the confusion. It's sad and telling that it was a Catholic who eventually dug it up for us, and once he did, it was easy why you've tried to hide it from us for all these years.

 

[abacabb3]

We see the oral Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures in play with when St. Paul stayed with the Bereans for three weeks teaching them the revelation of Christ. Obviously, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching by accepting the subsequent letters.

If we were to look for a sola scripturist group one would only need look to the Thessalonians who rejected the oral teaching, opted for using 'scripture alone', and tossed St. Paul out on his ear.

So, the Sacred Scriptures do testify to Sacred Tradition, not sola scriptura.

I do not think anyone rejects that Paul and other Apostles taught things orally. And, I do not think anyone rejects that what the Apostles taught and was preserved viva voce would be consistent with what we see in their written teachings.

So, the question is how do we know which tradition is actually Apostolic and which one isn't?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I just wish you could have been more honest with us in stating what was yours and which belonged to the LCMS.

HAHAHAHA....


For nearly 10 years, I've given the reference for the definition. As per CF rules. Over and over and over and over. In fact, whenever I've posted anything or anyone (including the RC Denomination on this) I've given the reference, I've credited the quote. All who have actually read my posts on this (and I suspect that may well include no Catholics, Mormons or Eastern Orthodox), they have all KNOWN exactly what was a quote from elsewhere (which of course, makes the rest mine) and where it comes from. All of this was and is clearly, undeniable and obviously know to all who READ what was posted (but of course, when it's not read, that's not known).

None of it is LCMS. Or I would have credited the LCMS, as per the rules of CF.

A simple link to the document

CF rules are that a quote be credited. Which is what I did for these 10 or so years. Of course, since it seems very obvious few if any Catholic or Mormon ever read anything in the posts on this, it is not shocking that they did not noticed the reference (it appears, they noticed nothing in it). And of course, since yes the Formula of Concord is freely available online, they of course could easily go to the referenced source. None did because I doubt any of them read anything in the post. Or cared. I suspect they didn't look it up for the same reason they didn't read any of the post. For some 10 years.

It's sad and telling that it was a Catholic who eventually dug it up for us

I posted this here at CF some 10 years ago (I was not the first, however). It took 10 years for any Catholic to read it (and I think it's still just you) and to notice that it's a quote and so the credit has been given, as per CF rules. For 10 years. MANY, MANY times. I'm not aware that a Catholic was the first to post the definition, but I AM aware that when I came to CF about 10 years ago, it was already very well known. IF some Catholic was the first here to post it, that simply would have been over 10 years ago and I can't confirm or deny that.






.

 

[Albion]

I do not think anyone rejects that Paul and other Apostles taught things orally. And, I do not think anyone rejects that what the Apostles taught and was preserved viva voce would be consistent with what we see in their written teachings.

So, the question is how do we know which tradition is actually Apostolic and which one isn't?

What they're attempting to do now is redefine and re-label tradition(s).

The definition of "Holy Tradition" and its use in the Catholic churches is quite a different matter from the facile claims being made that if Paul tells someone what Jesus taught, that's Sacred Tradition and is something that exists apart from the Scriptures but yet is equal to Scripture in authority.

As has been pointed out by others, if we know what Paul taught and believe it because it's in Scripture, then it's Scripture that's our guide, not legend or custom!

 

[Metal Minister]

Only holy scripture is inspired since inspiration produces written revelation.

Holy tradition together with holy scripture form a single deposit of faith, revealed by God himself they are the single rule of faith.

Saint Paul makes the claim that holy tradition is of equal authority with his letters.

Do you believe Paul taught something different from what he wrote down? Or is it more likely that the tradition he's speaking of is what he taught that is exactly the same as what he preached?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you believe Paul taught something different from what he wrote down? Or is it more likely that the tradition he's speaking of is what he taught that is exactly the same as what he preached?

It's probable that he taught more than he wrote down. That's why he tells Timothy to hold fast to the traditions I have handed down to you.

The thing is that Tradition does not contradict Scripture, in fact it supports it. And vice versa.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What they're attempting to do now is redefine and re-label tradition(s).

The definition of "Holy Tradition" and its use in the Catholic churches is quite a different matter from the facile claims being made that if Paul tells someone what Jesus taught, that's Sacred Tradition and is something that exists apart from the Scriptures but yet is equal to Scripture in authority.

As has been pointed out by others, if we know what Paul taught and believe it because it's in Scripture, then it's Scripture that's our guide, not legend or custom!

How do you know that what Paul wrote is the sum total of what he taught? His letters were meant to correct different things that were happening in those particular communities. There is nothing there about how they worshipped. His letters were corrective as well as instructive.

 

[abacabb3]

How do you know that what Paul wrote is the sum total of what he taught? His letters were meant to correct different things that were happening in those particular communities.

We don't. How do we know, with a 100% degree of certainty, that anything not from the Bible is actually tradition?

 

[Albion]

It's probable that he taught more than he wrote down.

So let's make that a dogma. Believe in ????? what, again? Is it to believe in the word "traditions?"

That's why he tells Timothy to hold fast to the traditions I have handed down to you.

Nothing in that suggests there's anything in it other than the Gospel.
The point of the comment is the "hold to" it part.

The thing is that Tradition does not contradict Scripture, in fact it supports it. And vice versa.

That's what defenders of it say. But of course, you don't know what it says, so it cannot support anything for you.

How do you know that what Paul wrote is the sum total of what he taught?

We don't, but neither do you. The point is that we trust what we have been given while you want to believe in something that you don't know. If your approach were valid, you would at least be able to identify what doctrines, teachings, or facts are to be received by you through "tradition." But you have no idea.

 

[hedrick]

The bible doesn't affirm denominationalism at all. Once you start adopting that language, you're getting away from the biblical definition of Church.

Denominationalism is a sola scripturist invention which, being a lover of the Sacred Scriptures, I passionately reject.

For me at least, the term denomination is actually a way of affirming the unity of the Church.

We're stuck with separation. The Catholic Church decided it couldn't tolerate the German Church and other developments in the 16th Cent. Maybe they were right that a single organization couldn't tolerate that amount of variation. Maybe it was a mistake made by a Papacy more concerned about power than the Gospel. We can disagree on that. But one way or another, we've got a split in the Church. By calling various Christian groups denominations, I continue to affirm that there's only one Church. A bit rumpled at the moment. But one Body of Christ.

When I refer to the RCC as a denomination, I am affirming that it's part of the Church. A great improvement from the 16th Cent when my spiritual ancestors were inclined to use terms like harlot.

Personally, I think the division was a judgement by God on the Church, and that division, bad as it is, may protect the Church against even more serious problems. In particular, I think it protects us against Church leaders with excessive pride, who are led by this into making decisions that cause serious problems for their people.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So let's make that a dogma. Believe in ????? what, again? Is it to believe in the word "traditions?"

He tells Timothy to believe in the traditions as well as what he taught him. That says that the traditions are as important as the teachings.

Nothing in that suggests there's anything in it other than the Gospel.
The point of the comment is the "hold to" it part.

One example: How, exactly, did the early Church worship? We know because of Justin Martyr and Ignatius telling us exactly how. Which is how we do it today, pretty much. The very content of the Bible is Tradition. So you HAVE to toss out Tradition if you want to change what the content of the Bible is.

That's what defenders of it say. But of course, you don't what it says, so it cannot support anything for you.

Huh? Care to repeat that legibly?

We don't, but neither do you. The point is that we trust what we have been given and you want to believe in something that you don't know. If your approach were valid, you would at least be able to identify what doctrines, teachings, or facts are to be received by you through "tradition." But you have no idea.

Actually, we do, because we have others writing about it. We believe that God SPEAKS as well as INSPIRES writing. We don't limit the Word to what has been written down, because that's not the only way God communicates.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think making a PHANTOM the embraced rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us is a poor idea.

See post # 11. Especially note the section "Why Scripture?"




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you believe Paul taught something different from what he wrote down?

Yes, I believe that saint Paul taught the detailed way to do liturgy but he didn't write that in any of his letters. In his letters saint Paul gives outlines and heavenly visions about the liturgy. In his teaching by example and word we know he taught the liturgy to church communities so that they too would know how the churches worshipped. I also believe that saint Paul taught the churches how to read the old testament christologically even though his letters only give a few examples of how this is to be done.

Or is it more likely that the tradition he's speaking of is what he taught that is exactly the same as what he preached?

No that it not more likely.

 

[tadoflamb]

I think making a PHANTOM the embraced rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us is a poor idea.

See post # 11. Especially note the section "Why Scripture?"

I don't know. It took until 1577 for the Lutherans to pen all seventeen words of the the official, historic, formal, confessional, verbatim (allegedly) definition of sola scriptura. I'm sure Dr. Martin didn't toss out everything he received from the Catholic Church, so whatever the sola scripturists retained, they retained from the Catholic Church which has never formulated a doctrine on sola scriptura.

 

[BobRyan]

How does your denomination define its doctrine of scripture and does it have a specific section or sections that tell you that scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures?

If so can you quote from the official doctrinal standard, show what passages of holy scripture are used to support its declaration on this subject, and explain its meaning in your own words, please?

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO"

The key principle of the protestant reformation.

Sola scriptura testing of his own denomination's traditions - Demonstrated by Christ in Mark 7:6-13

Even the RC denomination has some rule for testing new or old ideas.

The denomination I am a member of has this statement about Bible testing of all doctrine and practice -- this is "belief #1" in our 28 Fundamental Beliefs

[FONT=&quot]1. Holy Scriptures:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe Paul taught something different from what he wrote down? Or is it more likely that the tradition he's speaking of is what he taught that is exactly the same as what he preached?

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should teach a different Gospel ... let him be accursed".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

He tells Timothy to believe in the traditions as well as what he taught him. That says that the traditions are as important as the teachings.


.

I think making a PHANTOM the embraced rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us is a poor idea.

See post # 11. Especially note the section "Why Scripture?"




.

I don't know. It took until 1577 for the Lutherans to pen all seventeen words of the the official, historic, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura.

and it's not a doctrine taken from a phantom missing from Scripture. It's a PRACTICE which, while existing for centuries before the RCC, was stated in LUTHERAN confessions in 1577.

Obviously, this is wholly different than stating DE FIDE DOGMA and then stating it comes from non-existent, phantom, invisible "words" missing in Scripture, confirmed by words by the words MISSING in Scripture.





.

 

[Metal Minister]

and it's not a doctrine taken from a phantom missing from Scripture. It's a PRACTICE which, while existing for centuries before the RCC, was stated in LUTHERAN confessions in 1577.

Obviously, this is wholly different than stating DE FIDE DOGMA and then stating it comes from non-existent, phantom, invisible "words" missing in Scripture, confirmed by words by the words MISSING in Scripture.

.

Something I've noticed is this ethereal "Tradition" that cannot be defined, cannot be proved, and cannot be enumerated, is given a higher authority than the plain words of scripture by a man (or group of men) who claim infallibility without a shred of evidence, and we are all supposed to ignore the scriptures and their plain words telling us to test the teachings of those in authority above us, "because they said so." Sorry, but I do not fall in with Sola Ecclesia, because there is no denomination that doesn't have its black marks on their history. I will follow the Lord and His Word.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Something I've noticed is this ethereal "Tradition" that cannot be defined, cannot be proved, and cannot be enumerated, is given a higher authority than the plain words of scripture

Holy tradition is not a higher authority above holy scripture. Both are revealed by God and both have that authority which every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God has. The hyperbole in the things you've said does not help to advance the discussion. All it does is make things unclear so that the facts cannot be examined without first removing the misconceptions that obscure truth.

by a man (or group of men) who claim infallibility without a shred of evidence, and we are all supposed to ignore the scriptures and their plain words telling us to test the teachings of those in authority above us, "because they said so." Sorry, but I do not fall in with Sola Ecclesia, because there is no denomination that doesn't have its black marks on their history. I will follow the Lord and His Word.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

What I honestly do not understand is why some men think that the men in their assembly are somehow more knowledgeable in the scriptures than others?

We ALL begin as babes in Christ and grow in the grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ by the sincere milk of the word.

Why do men actually think that their assembly has an edge in this?

Seriously, I don't get it. Where does that come from?