Does this verse disprove Sola Scriptura?

[Bulldog]

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

 

[BjBarnett]

YES! GG SOLA SCRIPTURA! jk lol but interesting thought....

 

[InquisitorKind]

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

Only if it read "and," not "or."

~Matt

 

[II Paradox II]

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).

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

 

[backley]

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

Actually if you do a little research the "tradition" by word is the gospel.

Brian

 

[Sketcher]

"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn." - Isaiah 8:20

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." - Acts 17:11

 

[TwinCrier]

Does anyone see the irony in using the bible to prove that we shouldn't rely on Sola Scriptura?

 

[Preachers12]

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

 

[No Swansong]

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

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.

Regards
John

 

[II Paradox II]

Actually if you do a little research the "tradition" by word is the gospel.

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.

ken

 

[BBAS 64]

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

Good Day, Bulldog

I would say Not, Matt has pointed out a very good point has to the grammer used by Paul. The second promblem is that if Pual was pointing to some tradition that was given to the church of Thessalonian what was it?

There has been absolutlly no historidc records for a primary source to say that Paul said "x" or "y" to the church here out side of the letter which they received. There also lacks any record of any secondary source pointing to the church has an recieptant of an "new" information at this point in time.

The lack of evidence is the killing blow to this myth that is put forward as to claim some thing that did not happen or to infer it with out data to support such a notion

Another Myth dies the death of 100 qualifications, as a Myth is used to support an other Myth without any basis in tradition or history.

For His Glory Alone!

Bill

 

[Foundthelight]

Sola Scriptura as used in the reformed faith allows and welcomes the use of tradition as in the various creeds, confessions, and writings of the early church leaders. It does not allow these traditions to be held as superior to scripture. The traditions help us to determine what is heretical and what is not.

Many Protestants today actually seem to believe in what some call Solo Scriptura, meaning that only scripture is used and that creeds, confessions, and the early writings are rejected. These people believe that only reading of scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, is proper.

We can see the problem with Solo Scriptura in the rise today of preachers teaching things that were rejected as heretical by the early church leaders.

Sometimes we are guided by satan rather than the Holy Spirit.

 

[Carlos Vigil]

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

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?

 

[Foundthelight]

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?

There are many things in both Roman Catholic and Protestant Tradition that are not explicitely called out in the Bible.

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.

 

[InquisitorKind]

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.

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.

~Matt

 

[Lotar]

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?

Do you know what "classical Sola Scriptura" means? It is indeed found through out the history of the Church.

 

[Colabomb]

Does anyone see the irony in using the bible to prove that we shouldn't rely on Sola Scriptura?

No, because the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition.

If Sola Scriptura were true, Scripture would say so.

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible

 

[II Paradox II]

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"

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

 

[FireNBrimstone]

Does anyone see the irony in using the bible to prove that we shouldn't rely on Sola Scriptura?

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

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

And as a Protestant, I can say with confidence: that "scripture alone" has only led to chaos, confusion and division which is NOT of God!

 

[HoT-MetaL]

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.