Does this verse disprove Sola Scriptura?

[Carlos Vigil]

I don't recommend finding the meaning of Greek-translated words from an English dictionary.

.......I use the Engl.Dictionary because this is the language we are
communicating in.


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,


.......It does exist, many have been resisting it for centuries.

for example; in 33 a.d. Jesus said "Unless you eat My flesh
and drink My blood, you have no life in you."

John wrote those words in 90 a.d How did the believers obey
that command between 33 a.d. and 90 a.d. ???
HOW did they eat His flesh & drink His blood?

yet that tradition is atill being done today and the written word
confirms it , and isn't it still being resisted today?


Bible was not ADDED TO tradition in a linear fashion (like adding a garden hose to another to extend it)
rather , Bible was added to tradition in a parallel fashion ( like adding another lane to a hiway...resulting in 2 lanes in one direction )

are we competing with each other? It is not "sola tradition" and
it is not "sola scriptura"....... but both TRADION AND SCRIPTURE
it was a SINGLE LANE path at first...
now it is a two lane path,(three, if you include "LED BY THE SPIRIT" )



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

.......I do not disprove "SOLA SCRIPTURA"... I only disprove "SOLA"
.......Jesus said "You err because you know neither the scripture nor the
.......Power of god." apply sola scriptura to Acts 9:4,5,6;
.......what if Saul would have said (if he thought as you think)..."SHOW ME
WHERE IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE."

I Believe that SACRED TRADITION EXISTS, and SACRED SCRIPTURE EXISTS
that they both are in one accord....Do you believe that?

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Luke 11:27-28 ??

Hi hotmetal,
I sure am enjoying this discussion with you and Backley, BBAS64,
Inquisitorkind, Paradox...one thing for sure, you are challenging me to get into the scripture!!!

I read Luke 11:27, 28.....Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it." .......you did not comment on the reading,..... are you suggesting
that it says or implies "Sola Scriptura?"

I realize that HEARING the word is different than READING the word.
Hearing is ORAL. reading refers to what is written. (scripture)
FAITH comes by hearing, Knowledge comes by reading
we must not mistake FAITH with Knowledge.

...now,... "Those who HEAR the word of God and KEEP it."...I want to know
how YOU KEEP IT.


God Bless you all.
Carlos

 

[Carlos Vigil]

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.

If ALL DOCTRINE must be judged by scripture, then What scripture was St. Peter following (reading ) when he made his declaration in Acts 11:18 ???
from verse 1 to 18 I don't see any scripture quoted by him to judge his actions (or his doctrine) by.
this event happened in about 35-40 A.D.,...Acts was written about 75 A.D.
so.... was there any BIBLE for St. Peter to refer to.?

The Peace of Christ to you,
Carlos

 

[InquisitorKind]

I Believe that SACRED TRADITION EXISTS, and SACRED SCRIPTURE EXISTS
that they both are in one accord....Do you believe that?

Not in the way you seem to be defining the terms.

~Matt

 

[II Paradox II]

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?

Yes. The highest authority is always the revelation of God. The tradition is there to guide our interpretation and piety, not to straightjacket it.

One thing to consider is that these two things are to be kept together, but kept in tension. As our Catholic posters here would be glad to tell you, everyone reads scripture with a bias or a tradition. People don't read any text in a completely objective manner. However, it is also an error to assume that you will just read what you want and the right tradition is neccessary to insure a correct interpretation of scripture. God works through his Spirit and the word to confront us with our own sin and twisting of His revelation. It's a circle where we use tradition to regulate our interpretation while at the same time the revelation critiques our tradition and insures that we don't obscure the message of God with the ideas of men.

ken

 

[Lotar]

If ALL DOCTRINE must be judged by scripture, then What scripture was St. Peter following (reading ) when he made his declaration in Acts 11:18 ???
from verse 1 to 18 I don't see any scripture quoted by him to judge his actions (or his doctrine) by.
this event happened in about 35-40 A.D.,...Acts was written about 75 A.D.
so.... was there any BIBLE for St. Peter to refer to.?

The Peace of Christ to you,
Carlos

He wasn't taking anything from tradition here either, was he. The Apostles recieved special revelation from God, and their writings are inspired, this is hardly the same case.

 

[Carlos Vigil]

He wasn't taking anything from tradition here either, was he. The Apostles recieved special revelation from God, and their writings are inspired, this is hardly the same case.

In this instance ( Acts 11:18 ) Peter is doing the same thing St. Paul did in
1 Cor. 11:23, and 15:3 "What I received from God, I am handing on to you."
can you see that "tradition " is EXACTLY; "I received from the Lord what I handed on to you..." ( before I wrote to you )

Yes the Apostles received special revelation from God, and their writings are inspired...HOWEVER, ....don't forget, after it was REVEALED, they SPOKE IT, and after SPEAKING it, they WROTE it.
the REVELATION was inspired,
the SPEAKING was inspired and
the WRITING was inspired.

From REVELATION to speaking is tradition
From REVELATION to writing is scripture

both in speaking and in reading any one can receive IDEAS
from Heaven or from hell
that is why we are encouraged to be quick to hear and slow to speak. (after we are confident that what we received IS FROM HEAVEN.)

Carlos

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Carlos

Would you be so kind as to address my last post:

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

 

[Lotar]

In this instance ( Acts 11:18 ) Peter is doing the same thing St. Paul did in
1 Cor. 11:23, and 15:3 "What I received from God, I am handing on to you."
can you see that "tradition " is EXACTLY; "I received from the Lord what I handed on to you..." ( before I wrote to you )

Yes the Apostles received special revelation from God, and their writings are inspired...HOWEVER, ....don't forget, after it was REVEALED, they SPOKE IT, and after SPEAKING it, they WROTE it.
the REVELATION was inspired,
the SPEAKING was inspired and
the WRITING was inspired.

From REVELATION to speaking is tradition
From REVELATION to writing is scripture

both in speaking and in reading any one can receive IDEAS
from Heaven or from hell
that is why we are encouraged to be quick to hear and slow to speak. (after we are confident that what we received IS FROM HEAVEN.)

Carlos

Then tell me, when Paul said to preserve the traditions passed down from him, what traditions is he exactly refering to? What exactly were his words to them?

We do not deny tradition, nor do we claim the scripture is God's only revelation. But, with spoken tradition, it is impossible to verify it's source or it's validity without written support. We are told that scripture is good for doctrine, we are not told the same about oral tradition.

Chrysostom said, "Whatever is required for salvation is already completely fulfilled in Scriptures."

Origen said, "In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing. For as all gold which was outside the temple was not sanctified, so every sense which is outside Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not sacred because it is not limited by the sense of Scripture. Therefore we should not take our own ideas for confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temple of God."

Cyril said, "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."

Gregory said, "...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings."

Basil said, "They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth."

 

[BBAS 64]

In this instance ( Acts 11:18 ) Peter is doing the same thing St. Paul did in
1 Cor. 11:23, and 15:3 "What I received from God, I am handing on to you."
can you see that "tradition " is EXACTLY; "I received from the Lord what I handed on to you..." ( before I wrote to you )

Good Day, Carlos

Paul did in fact write this to the church at Corinth it is his letter to that church. To the same matter what Paul wrote is consistant with the Gospels.

Yes the Apostles received special revelation from God, and their writings are inspired...HOWEVER, ....don't forget, after it was REVEALED, they SPOKE IT, and after SPEAKING it, they WROTE it.
the REVELATION was inspired,
the SPEAKING was inspired and
the WRITING was inspired.

From REVELATION to speaking is tradition
From REVELATION to writing is scripture

both in speaking and in reading any one can receive IDEAS
from Heaven or from hell
that is why we are encouraged to be quick to hear and slow to speak. (after we are confident that what we received IS FROM HEAVEN.)

Carlos

Carlos this is very confusing in the way inwhich your ideas are presented ypu seem to hold that there are many things occuring at the same time with out a relasonship to one another. It was God that gave the inspiration God gave the revelation man wrote as God guided them to , it all about God His word His revelation, His Ideas.


"(after we are confident that what we received IS FROM HEAVEN.)"

What standard do you use to come to the conclusion on what is from heaven "of God" and what is not.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Philip]

Lotar,
Can you narrow my search for those quotes?

 

[theseed]

2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I couldn't tell you without making a personal interpretation

 

[Lotar]

Lotar,
Can you narrow my search for those quotes?

The quote from St. Chrysostom comes from something he wrote on Matthew 22. (taken from Martin Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent, which is, unfortunately, still in the first edition of its English translation and is lacking much in the way of footnotes)

Origen's is from Homily 25 of Matthew.

St. Cyril's quote: (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory: (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

St. Basil: (Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume VIII, p. 229.)


Some more :

Tertulian, in Against Hermogenes: "I adore the fullness of Scripture. Let the workshop of Hermogenes teach that it is written. If it is not written, let him fear that woe which is destined for those who add or take away."

St. Cyprian, in Ad Pompejum: "There is a short way for pious minds both to dethrone error and to find and bring out the truth. For when we return to the source and origen of the divine tradition, human error ceases. If the waters of a channel which previously flowed freely and plentifully should suddenly fail, does one not go back to the spring to find the reason of its failure there; whether the spring has gone dry because its veins have dried up at the source or whether, while flowing forth from there undiminished and fully, it has been stopped somewhere along its way? This the priests of God must do also now, and if the truth should waver or become shaky in any one point, let us return to the origin in the Lord, to the doctrine of the evangelists and of the apostles, and let the manner of our action arise from the same place from which both order and origin arose... Whence is this doctrine? DOes it come from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For that those things must be done which is written God testifies and commands when He says to Joshua: 'The book of this law chall not depart out of your mouth, that you may observe to do all things which are written." If therefore it is either commanded in the Gospel or contained in the epistles and the Acts, then also this sacred doctrine must be observed, etc."

 

[Philip]

Thanks

 

[Lotar]

.......I do not disprove "SOLA SCRIPTURA"... I only disprove "SOLA"
.......Jesus said "You err because you know neither the scripture nor the
.......Power of god." apply sola scriptura to Acts 9:4,5,6;
.......what if Saul would have said (if he thought as you think)..."SHOW ME
WHERE IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE."

I Believe that SACRED TRADITION EXISTS, and SACRED SCRIPTURE EXISTS
that they both are in one accord....Do you believe that?

This is where Roman Catholics and the sects are both at the same time in one accord, and yet completely opposite. You both hold that Scripture is one thing and Tradition another, which is as much a Baptist doctrine as it is Roman Catholic; only you give them equal wieght, while they give Tradition nearly none.

Scripture and Tradition are not two seperate things of equal authority, this is foolishness, Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition. Do not take my statements or my quotes to mean that the Church Fathers or I believe in Scripture apart from Tradition, what foolishness this would be. In the Lutheran Confessions, the order of authority of Tradition is given, it never says "Scripture is the only source of God's revelation," or "all personal beliefs must come from the Bible." Scripture is the pinnacle of Tradition, the sole rule and norm that all articles of faith must be judged by. This means that all doctrine binding to a person's conscience must have a Scriptural basis. So, even though many believe in Mary's ever virginity, the immaculate conseption, etc., we would never bind a person's concience to it and declare an anathema upon those who do not accept said doctrine.

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Good Day, Carlos

Paul did in fact write this to the church at Corinth it is his letter to that church. To the same matter what Paul wrote is consistant with the Gospels.

Hi BBAS64, & Lotar,....Your first post;
What Paul handed down to Thess. was not for Thess. only, it was for THE ENTIRE CHURCH, that is why it is in scripture....What is necessary for salvation was taught to all the "churches"...that they ALL may be ONE.
like what he said to the Corinthians in 11:23, is universal, what he said in 15:3, is universal,...what he said to Thess. in 2 Thess. 2:11 and 2:15 is universal, and it is at the same time tradition (handed down orally prior to handing down something written)
if you can see that you teach your kids the same way with spirit, words and readings, sometimes words from the heart, sometimes readings (from the heart) then you can see how APOSTOLIC TRADITION WORKS....the problem comes when a teacher separates scripture away from its universal nature and says it only applies to a specific community. that is when THE CHAIN becomes unlinked, which creates confusion.
Everything in the NT is universal, even the book of Jude....The Apostles of the 4th century selected the books to make up the NT, to build up The Body of Christ universally even though an epistle may have been written to a specific community.

Carlos this is very confusing in the way inwhich your ideas are presented ypu seem to hold that there are many things occuring at the same time with out a relasonship to one another. It was God that gave the inspiration God gave the revelation man wrote as God guided them to , it all about God His word His revelation, His Ideas.

In God's plan there are many things occuring at the same time and are related to ea.other;.... "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and works through all and is in all....
ONE NEW COVENANT for ALL.
Scripture and tradition ar like chickens and eggs...the process just goes onnnnnn and onnnnnnnn!...if we allow the process to work we eill always hace chickens AND eggs, if we try to separate one from the other we kill the Goose that laid the Golden egg.

"(after we are confident that what we received IS FROM HEAVEN.)"

What standard do you use to come to the conclusion on what is from heaven "of God" and what is not.

The same as Paul;. "I believe and so I spoke"
but the reason I believe is from Matt. 11:25

Thank you for conversing with me even tho I am a stranger
carlos



Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Lotar]

Carlos,

I fail to see what the above post has to do with me. If you want to reply to my responses, I will give you opinion.

 

[d0c markus]

i've been edified from reading this discussion. Thanks.

 

[II Paradox II]

one more quote from one of my favorite fathers, Caesarius of Arles (an Augustian who was an influential member of several church councils...). Unfortunately, if you want to check the cite you need to go to a library, as none of his works are available online, but only through the Fathers of the Church series from the Catholic University. One more note - his sermons are a good study in allegorical interpretation. He is quite creative in his exegesis at times...

"[font=&quot]Sacred Scripture speaks about the godhead and divinity of the Holy Spirit, but does not say whether He should be called begotten or unbegotten. See what confusion a lack of faith creates. You do not want to know what God did not want to be unknown, and you want to know what He did not decree should be asked. . . .You ask whether He [i.e. the Holy Spirit] was begotten or not. Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence. Since God did not think that this should be indicated in His writings, He did not want you to question or to know through idle curiosity." FC, Vol. 66, Sermons 187-238, Sermon 213.1-2 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1973), pp. 106, 107.

ken
[/font]

 

[Adoniram]

This is a very interesting topic, if not confusing at times. I would assume that the validity of any given oral and/or doctrinal tradition should be based in scripture. If a tradition exists, we should be able to find it's origin in the scriptures. If we cannot, the tradition should be abandoned.

The communion table and baptism are both scripturally supported traditions. There are many teachings however, in both Protestant and Catholic churches, that have no foundation in scripture. Most of the so-called "oral traditions" will fit into this catagory.

2 Tim. 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiritation of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,"

Everything that God deemed important for us to know was inspirationally given to the "holy men of God" (2 Pet. 1:21) and written down for our edification and instruction. This scripture, these "letters" were passed around the early churches from the moment of their being written in the mid to late 1st century. It is not true that they had only oral teaching to rely on, although they did have that from the original apostles. Indeed, some of these letters were written to correct oral traditions that had gone awry. It would seem that in these early churches, even with the advantage of being taught orally by the original apostles, traditions quickly arose that were skewed from the original teaching.

Paul alluded to this in 2 Tim. 4:3-4, "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; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

There are teachings by many churches that fall into this catagory. Baptism being required for salvation, speaking in tongues being the only evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit, the perpetual viginity of Mary, praying to dead saints, the ascension of Mary, you won't get to heaven unless you are a member of our church, the Second Coming has already occured (Preterism), etc., etc.

The Word of God has to be the final authority. It alone is "profitable for reproof." So, if the "tradition" cannot be proven by the scriptures, it is unsound, it is a fable.