2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
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.
Bulldog said:2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Against a classical definition of sola scriptura, no it wouldn't. As a quick perusal of the Westminster Confession would reveal, tradition is not rejected out of hand. Against a more rigid definition of SS, it might obviously be a problem (such as those holding that scripture is our only source of authority, instead of the comparatively more easily defended notion that the scriptures are the only infallible authority or the standard by which all other standards are measured).Bulldog said:2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
II Paradox II said:Against a classical definition of sola scriptura, no it wouldn't. As a quick perusal of the Westminster Confession would reveal, tradition is not rejected out of hand. Against a more rigid definition of SS, it might obviously be a problem (such as those holding that scripture is our only source of authority, instead of the comparatively more easily defended notion that the scriptures are the only infallible authority or the standard by which all other standards are measured).
As I have stated to others, the issue is not oral tradition vs. written revelation, an argument about mode of transmission, but whether certain traditions are truly apostolic or true. Many traditions put forth as legitimate struggle to find sufficient biblical or historical merit for their case.
ken
Preachers 12 makes an excellent point. The term Sola Scriptura not only means many things to us today, it was even argued shortly after the reformation. For instance there is a small difference between Scripture being the pre-eminent part of the Tradition of the Church and Scripture being an authority over the Tradition of the Church. One sets scripture within the Tradition of the Church, the other sets it apart from. If I am not mistaken (and I could be here) I believe that Luther and Calvin disagreed specifically on what the implications of this term are. It is a wise man who defines his terms before he begins to debate them. Perhaps before engaging too far into this debate we should set about accepting a definition of Sola Scriptura. Then we can more easily answer whether 2Thess 2: 15 disproves it or not.Preachers12 said:Brethren in Christ, God give you Peace.
One of the big problems on this topic is that Sola Scriptura (SS) means so many different things to so many different people. The semantics really need to be defined so that the discussion can make some sense.
A young non-Catholic man recently began asking me some questions about Catholicism. As we began to speak, I learned that he did not know how SS was defined by his own religion. When I tried to correct him, he wouldn't believe me.
It was not until I printed for him a "Treatise" from his own religion that he realized how wrong he was and how important a difference it meant. At least then we were able to progress in the conversations. Had I not been aware of the differences, we could have continued talking in circles till frustration simply ended it completely.
While he and I may disagree about SS, at least knowing exactly what the other believes on the topic gives us footing for further conversation. There's so much to dicuss! So much to learn from one another! Why should we allow one thing like this to preempt or destroy other edifying conversations!? I wonder who would be most pleased by that happening? (May God rebuke you, Satan!)
God Bless,
P12
It probably is, but it makes no difference whether it is or not for the purpose of the OP. I think the most likely explanation of the verse is that Paul taught the same things whether by letter or in person, so the two are coextensive. However, even if he didn't mean this, it still wouldn't disprove the classical definition of SS because it didn't throw out every tradition, but it subjected them to the judgement of scripture.backley said:Actually if you do a little research the "tradition" by word is the gospel.
Good Day, BulldogBulldog said:2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
II Paradox II said:Against a classical definition of sola scriptura, no it wouldn't.
the issue is not oral tradition vs. written revelation, an argument about mode of transmission, but whether certain traditions are truly apostolic or true.
ken
There are many things in both Roman Catholic and Protestant Tradition that are not explicitely called out in the Bible.Carlos Vigil said:Dear Paradox
A)since the classical "Sola Scriptura" did not appear until after M.Luther,and
B) since "Sola Scriptura" is not in the scripture ( in the Bible ) and
C) since "Sola Scriptura" is not taught in Apostolic Tradition then .......
DOES IT EVEN NEED TO BE DISPROVED?...since it has never been proved, although it has been widely promoted as "true"
Isn't it like; If you pump enough air into a truck tire, can you make it fly?
I also recommend this book. I was reading through parts of it a few days ago and was reminded about how useful it would be for many Protestants to read this and gain a proper understanding of Sola Scriptura.Foundthelight said:I would like to recommend the book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith A. Mathison. This is a very well researched text on the subject. It is available at Barnes and Noble stores.
Do you know what "classical Sola Scriptura" means? It is indeed found through out the history of the Church.Carlos Vigil said:Dear Paradox
A)since the classical "Sola Scriptura" did not appear until after M.Luther,and
B) since "Sola Scriptura" is not in the scripture ( in the Bible ) and
C) since "Sola Scriptura" is not taught in Apostolic Tradition then .......
DOES IT EVEN NEED TO BE DISPROVED?...since it has never been proved, although it has been widely promoted as "true"
Isn't it like; If you pump enough air into a truck tire, can you make it fly?
No, because the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition.TwinCrier said:Does anyone see the irony in using the bible to prove that we shouldn't rely on Sola Scriptura?
1) I don't think you're supposed to be debating in here.Carlos Vigil said:Dear Paradox
A)since the classical "Sola Scriptura" did not appear until after M.Luther,and
B) since "Sola Scriptura" is not in the scripture ( in the Bible ) and
C) since "Sola Scriptura" is not taught in Apostolic Tradition then .......
DOES IT EVEN NEED TO BE DISPROVED?...since it has never been proved, although it has been widely promoted as "true"
Me, I find it ironic that someone is trying to use the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION to "prove" sola scriptura!TwinCrier said:Does anyone see the irony in using the bible to prove that we shouldn't rely on Sola Scriptura?
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?