Does this verse disprove Sola Scriptura?

[HoT-MetaL]

One of the arguments against Sola Scripture is different views on what the scripture means... unfortunately churches also have different views, so there goes that one.

God Bless, metal.

 

[II Paradox II]

Me, I find it ironic that someone is trying to use the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION to "prove" sola scriptura!

Why would that be ironic? The reformed churches have historically held that tradition and scripture are both legitimate, but that tradition is held up to the greater authority of scripture itself. We reject the modern "bible-alone" view because it is self-referentially fallacious in addition to the fact that it would gut any notion of a confessional church.

I should add as well that the Confession was not being used to prove sola scriptura, but to illustrate the fact that our confessional position doesn't obviate the need for tradition. In fact the very point that are scoffing at in the first place.

Seriously, if you want to prove or disprove s.s. you have to hold s.s. to its own standard: scripture alone.

why would we do that if that's not what we mean?

ken

 

[FireNBrimstone]

Why would that be ironic? The reformed churches have historically held that tradition and scripture are both legitimate, but that tradition is held up to the greater authority of scripture itself. We reject the modern "bible-alone" view because it is self-referentially fallacious in addition to the fact that it would gut any notion of a confessional church.

I should add as well that the Confession was not being used to prove sola scriptura, but to illustrate the fact that our confessional position doesn't obviate the need for tradition. In fact the very point that are scoffing at in the first place.

why would we do that if that's not what we mean?

ken

But the Confession is a form of tradition... beliefs being interpreted and taught as a doctrine formed.

 

[Lotar]

Everything's tradition.
Creeds, Councils, and Confessions are tradition
Doctrine is tradition
Sola Scriptura is tradition
Scripture itself is tradition


Sola Scriptura means that scripture is the highest form of tradition, and all doctrine must be judged by it.

 

[II Paradox II]

But the Confession is a form of tradition... beliefs being interpreted and taught as a doctrine formed.

Sure, that's not being debated. That's why I as a confessional Christian do not say that scripture is the *only* authority known to man on the basis of the Confession. If I did, that would contradict the the fact that the confession itself is a traditional authority.

ken

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Anyone?

Does this scripture prove Sola Scripture, and disprove the high status of mary?

Luke 11:27-28
While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed. But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." -- NASV

The most accurate gospel, and the most accurate translation... imo.

God Bless, metal.

 

[Lotar]

The sects will always just believe what they want to believe and continue to split and create new doctrine. Why? Because they reject tradition at will and using their own reason as a more authoritative source for doctrine.

The verse is clear that she is a great woman to be honored. When honor Peter, Paul, John, etc. so why not Mary? People can interpret it to mean something different or ignore it, because without tradition scripture is not clear on everything, not even most things.

 

[Rilian]

Everything's tradition.

Lotar, get a hold of yourself, you're almost sounding Orthodox.

 

[Lotar]

Lotar, get a hold of yourself, you're almost sounding Orthodox.

Don't worry, I'm pure orthodox Lutheran

 

[Rilian]

To seriously address this thread, I don't think the verse in question disproves the idea of sola scriptura anymore than it proves the validity of the Catholic Magisterium. I do think it highlights the real and natural flow of teaching authority in the history of the church.

The thing about sola scriptura, as has been pointed out, is that I think it is often most misunderstood and abused by the people who operate under the aegis of its guiding principle. I think the "tradition" of much of modern conservative Protestantism is that it is just suspicious of the older traditions of the church. They do create their own traditions though. In general I think this has elevated individual manipulation of the Bible and has led to much of the fractious nature of Protestant thinking. Some say this goes back to the Enlightment and the pervasive force of reason as a means and an end. I think this suspicion of the past has been a real hole in making sense of the Bible. There are certainly thoughtful and very learned evangelical scholars out there like J.I. Packer and the late Carl Henry, but for the most part it seems like they operate on the margins of the evangelical movement and not at its core.

 

[Carlos Vigil]

1) I don't think you're supposed to be debating in here.

2) all you have done is given assertions and assumptions. If you want to know what I think, just reverse every point you've made.

ken

OK Paradox,
I would like to know what YOU THINK about
point (A) If "Sola Scriptura" was in Church use prior to the Reformers, M.Luther & his associates. Where and how was it used?

It seems to me "Sola Scriptura " is a self 0bliterating literalism, but I could be wrong....Please correct me if I am....are you taught;
(A)"the ONLY AUTHORITY available for christians is scripture" ?

IF THAT IS TRUE ;,
THE FIRST CHRISTIANS from Pentecost til the time THE BIBLE was determined, (several hundred years) were ILLIGITIMATE, they were not "bible christians" ...and furthermore,

THE BIBLE ITSELF would have to be illigitimate also because there was no AUTHORITY operating to decide WHAT BIBLE IS.
if "Sola Scriptura " must stick.

I would like to know what you think on this matter.

Respectfully, Carlos

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Good Day, Bulldog

The second promblem is that if Pual was pointing to some tradition that was given to the church of Thessalonian what was it?

For His Glory Alone!

Bill

Dear BBAS64,
In your Websters dictionary; "tradition"( the root is "dicere, diction )...the antonym is "contadict"

TRADITION ; 2. "the handing down ORALLY of stories, beliefs, customs, etc. from generation to generation".

And in 2 Tim.2:2 St. Paul gives us a LIVE demo. of "tradition" taking place;
"...which you have HEARD from me, you must HAND ON to
trustworthy men who will be able to teach others."

Paul WAS AUTHORIZED, and he also AUTHORIZED OTHERS , who authorized others, he introduced two ideas by the same authority... in 1 Cor. 11:23 & 1 Cor. 15:3

Can you see that the Bible was ADDED to Tradition?

Carlos

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Luke 11:27-28 ??

 

[koppee1]

Luke 11:27-28 ??

Since they are ignoring your verse ....let me just tell you that I'm glad you posted that. I've probably read that verse a lot of times and didn't really see how important it could be.

 

[InquisitorKind]

Dear BBAS64,
In your Websters dictionary; "tradition"( the root is "dicere, diction )...the antonym is "contadict"

I don't recommend finding the meaning of Greek-translated words from an English dictionary. That's partially what led me to believe that Christ wasn't God for about a month. Use this instead:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/

TRADITION ; 2. "the handing down ORALLY of stories, beliefs, customs, etc. from generation to generation".

Can you see that the Bible was ADDED to Tradition?

Carlos

For the thrust of your question to be relevant, you would need to produce the unwritten tradition that the Bible was added to. If it does exist, then your position on "tradition" as a means of disproving classical Sola Scriptura would be much more valid. If it doesn't exist, and all we have of God's inspired word is to be found in the Scriptures, Sola Scriptura prevails.

~Matt

 

[II Paradox II]

It seems to me "Sola Scriptura " is a self 0bliterating literalism, but I could be wrong....Please correct me if I am....are you taught;
(A)"the ONLY AUTHORITY available for christians is scripture" ?

No, that is not what the doctrine means. Part of the confusion is that the definition you have presented has become more common in our churches. However, this is not what the doctrine meant to the main reformers nor confessional christian groups. A famous definition from the reformation period simply described by positing the scriptures as the standard by which all other standards are measured. What you get out of that ultimately is that the scriptures are the sole infallible authority that we know of, not the sole authority.

This is why we use confessions (which you need to swear by to even be ordained or become a member of the church), why we follow traditional practices, etc... One who argues that the scripture is the only authority does have a problem because they cannot explain how the canon of scripture came about nor justify anything outside of scripture. As you probably know, this is a very difficult position to maintain. For that reason, we have never taught that. If you'd like, I'd suggest reading the Westminster Confession and see what it says about the issue. What you will see is that we talk highly of the scriptures, but we also make mention of our knowledge of the scriptures coming partly from the witness of the church, that some issues of church polity and so forth have come from our perception of the light of nature and Christian prudence (in other words - from the traditions of the church) and that teachers and the church are neccessary to illuminate the scripture's explicit and implicit meaning to the people.

IF THAT IS TRUE ;,
THE FIRST CHRISTIANS from Pentecost til the time THE BIBLE was determined, (several hundred years) were ILLIGITIMATE, they were not "bible christians" ...and furthermore,

THE BIBLE ITSELF would have to be illigitimate also because there was no AUTHORITY operating to decide WHAT BIBLE IS.
if "Sola Scriptura " must stick.

As you helpfully point out, this is one reason why we don't teach such things. If we did, these criticisms would be valid.

(A) If "Sola Scriptura" was in Church use prior to the Reformers, M.Luther & his associates. Where and how was it used?

Just so you understand my argument, I don't argue that the early church did things exactly like this, because I don't think they did. However, I also don't think that there has been one system of authority held since the beginning. Looking back at the historical record it seems that the issue of authority has developed over time in fits and starts, sometimes it is internally consistent and sometimes not, just as it is today.

However, that being said, you can certainly see some elements in the fathers that very closely parallel the reformation thought. For example, it was a fairly common patristic teaching that the sum of the apostolic tradition was contained in the scriptures instead of being partly in scripture and partly in oral tradition. This issue has yet to be fully resolved in the Catholic church, some taking one position, some taking the other. If you look in the patristic record you will also find hundreds, if not thousands of quotes that exalt the scriptures as much, if not more than many modern fundamentalists. Of course, this was also balanced with a healthy recognizance of the importance of the church, but their attitude towards the usefulness of scripture for both doctrine and laity was often close to reformation piety.

Ultimately, I don't think this is a black and white issue. The more I look at it, the more circuitous it seems. From what I have seen, both modern systems of authority have roots in the patristic period and can have legimate claim to elements of that tradition.

ken

 

[backley]

Dear BBAS64,
In your Websters dictionary; "tradition"( the root is "dicere, diction )...the antonym is "contadict"

TRADITION ; 2. "the handing down ORALLY of stories, beliefs, customs, etc. from generation to generation".

And in 2 Tim.2:2 St. Paul gives us a LIVE demo. of "tradition" taking place;
"...which you have HEARD from me, you must HAND ON to
trustworthy men who will be able to teach others."

Paul WAS AUTHORIZED, and he also AUTHORIZED OTHERS , who authorized others, he introduced two ideas by the same authority... in 1 Cor. 11:23 & 1 Cor. 15:3

Can you see that the Bible was ADDED to Tradition?

Carlos

And what was heard?

2Ti 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

What did Paul teach verbally that is also written? Timothy traveled with Paul. What did he hear? The gospel.

http://www.theologyforums.com/forum...30&pagenumber=3

Brian

 

[BBAS 64]

Dear BBAS64,
In your Websters dictionary; "tradition"( the root is "dicere, diction )...the antonym is "contadict"

TRADITION ; 2. "the handing down ORALLY of stories, beliefs, customs, etc. from generation to generation".

And in 2 Tim.2:2 St. Paul gives us a LIVE demo. of "tradition" taking place;
"...which you have HEARD from me, you must HAND ON to
trustworthy men who will be able to teach others."

Paul WAS AUTHORIZED, and he also AUTHORIZED OTHERS , who authorized others, he introduced two ideas by the same authority... in 1 Cor. 11:23 & 1 Cor. 15:3

Can you see that the Bible was ADDED to Tradition?

Carlos

Good Day, Carlos

Tradition as defined with in the websters dictionary may be differnet then the usage in the time of NT writings as Matt has pointed out. I do not see this as question of authority even though one's authority is a subjecyive undertaking is not revevant to my point.

The point is Carlos in the Thess verse in the OP what was passed down to that single church from Paul? Would you please provide the historical eveindance that says Paul told "X" to the church, and it is no whare with the pages of the written Scripture.

Can you not see the Scripture is the Tradition handed down from the Apostles, which the early church died in their defence of them.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[sad astronaut]

It is not that I am Sola Scriptura, its just that I am Scriptura and against anything that contradicts Scriptura. (Abuse of the term I know)

 

[Sketcher]

. A famous definition from the reformation period simply described by positing the scriptures as the standard by which all other standards are measured. What you get out of that ultimately is that the scriptures are the sole infallible authority that we know of, not the sole authority.

So what if the "fallible" authorities teach something that contradicts Scripture? Do we make a loophole and call it a "special case" or do we call him on it?