Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

[Root of Jesse]

Pesky Bible study taking up so much of our precious time...

It's not the Bible part I don't have time for. I read and study Scripture every day. It seems you are laughing...

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In Mark 7 the oral Word of Christ entirely agreed with Scripture, as with the Bereans. Sacred Tradition always agrees

in Mark 7 we see sacred tradition being slammer-hammered by Christ and Christ does not just say "your tradition is wrong and if you were to study the Bible you would see that I am right" -- rather Christ makes the "sola scriptura" case right there in the text.

He does not point to his own statement saying "see I said you were wrong and so that proves you are wrong" rather His teaching is "Here is what you say ... and here is what God's WORD said as written right here" - and the result was that sacred tradition in the examples give - was condemned.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.





in Mark 7 we see sacred tradition being slammer-hammered by Christ and Christ does not just say "your tradition is wrong and if you were to study the Bible you would see that I am right" -- rather Christ makes the "sola scriptura" case right there in the text.

He does not point to his own statement saying "see I said you were wrong and so that proves you are wrong" rather His teaching is "Here is what you say ... and here is what God's WORD said as written right here" - and the result was that sacred tradition in the examples give - was condemned.

We disagree. Sacred Tradition was not condemned, tradition was condemned.

 

[BobRyan]

We disagree. Sacred Tradition was not condemned, tradition was condemned.

I am not a Catholic - I argue that much of what you call "sacred tradition" is in fact error. But that does not mean that you do not call it "Sacred Tradition".

You are not a Jew. You argue that much of what the Jewish Magesterium taught in Mark 7:6-13 was in fact "error' but they argue that it was 'sacred tradition' -- you as an outsider to their church - differ.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


The point remains -- this is their so-called 'sacred tradition' getting hammered sola scriptura.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It's not the Bible part I don't have time for. I read and study Scripture every day. It seems you are laughing...

All I can go by is what your put on here... don't know you from Adam really.

Not laughing, btw...

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Essentially what Scripture alone boils down to is a question of authority. Who, or what, has the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice? This was the underlying dispute between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church holds to a dual source of authority: 1) Scripture and 2) Tradition. Rome defines tradition as that collection of oral teachings – not recorded in Scripture – which the apostles of our Lord passed down to their successors (the bishops). This oral tradition, because it also claims an apostolic origin, is given equal weight with Scripture; which is merely the written tradition of the apostles. Paul's admonition to the Thessalonian church is often used in support of an apostolic oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

In addition to this dual source of authority, Rome also teaches that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole infallible interpreter of both Scripture and tradition (1 Timothy 3:15). Only the Pope and the Magisterium (the official teaching arm of the Catholic Church) can interpret both Scripture and tradition. If you really think about, this is no longer a dual source of authority, but a single source of authority – the Church. Scripture and tradition form the source material of divine revelation, but it is the Church that is able to infallibly interpret divine revelation; therefore, authority is invested in the Church alone (or Sola Ecclesia).

The Reformers rejected the idea of an infallible Church. They recognized that even the best of men could make mistakes. Only the word of God is declared to be divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). As divinely inspired, only the Scriptures can rightly said to be infallible. Therefore, the Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church by declaring Scripture alone to be the only, infallible rule of faith and practice.

 

[Standing Up]

Essentially what Scripture alone boils down to is a question of authority. Who, or what, has the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice? This was the underlying dispute between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church holds to a dual source of authority: 1) Scripture and 2) Tradition. Rome defines tradition as that collection of oral teachings – not recorded in Scripture – which the apostles of our Lord passed down to their successors (the bishops). This oral tradition, because it also claims an apostolic origin, is given equal weight with Scripture; which is merely the written tradition of the apostles. Paul's admonition to the Thessalonian church is often used in support of an apostolic oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

In addition to this dual source of authority, Rome also teaches that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole infallible interpreter of both Scripture and tradition (1 Timothy 3:15). Only the Pope and the Magisterium (the official teaching arm of the Catholic Church) can interpret both Scripture and tradition. If you really think about, this is no longer a dual source of authority, but a single source of authority – the Church. Scripture and tradition form the source material of divine revelation, but it is the Church that is able to infallibly interpret divine revelation; therefore, authority is invested in the Church alone (or Sola Ecclesia).

The Reformers rejected the idea of an infallible Church. They recognized that even the best of men could make mistakes. Only the word of God is declared to be divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). As divinely inspired, only the Scriptures can rightly said to be infallible. Therefore, the Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church by declaring Scripture alone to be the only, infallible rule of faith and practice.

Good points. RC used to claim a three-legged stool, but as you note, it's really 2 legged (their scripture and their tradition) with their magisterium, sitting upon the beam, deciding what the legs consist of.

 

[Erose]

Essentially what Scripture alone boils down to is a question of authority. Who, or what, has the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice? This was the underlying dispute between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church holds to a dual source of authority: 1) Scripture and 2) Tradition.

Actually I would say that Sola Scriptura is essentially a question about perception of authority. The Catholic Church freely admits that she has a set core of Doctrines, which we call the Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition, by which we interpret Scripture and guide our practices. Most Protestants, except maybe Lutherans and Anglicans, deny the fact that they have a faith tradition of their own, by which they interpret Scripture and guide their practices. The problem is every single Protestant denomination has its on Faith Tradition, it is just denied, because the word "tradition" has been made into a bad word due to Protestant apologetics.

Rome defines tradition as that collection of oral teachings – not recorded in Scripture – which the apostles of our Lord passed down to their successors (the bishops). This oral tradition, because it also claims an apostolic origin, is given equal weight with Scripture; which is merely the written tradition of the apostles. Paul's admonition to the Thessalonian church is often used in support of an apostolic oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

This is a false statement. Sacred Tradition is the WHOLE Deposit of Faith, the full Public Revelation. Most of which is found in Scripture, but not all. In all reality even though Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is viewed as separate, Sacred Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition.

One other thing, there really is three sources of authority, not two. The other being the Magisterium, i.e. the body of Bishops. All three sources of authority are needed.

In addition to this dual source of authority, Rome also teaches that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole infallible interpreter of both Scripture and tradition (1 Timothy 3:15). Only the Pope and the Magisterium (the official teaching arm of the Catholic Church) can interpret both Scripture and tradition.

Well you started off right, but the last sentence is questionable. The Magisterium, which the pope is a member of, does not claim sole interpretation of Scripture. Private interpretation is quite acceptable, as long as it does not conflict with the teaching of the faith. In all reality, non-Catholic churches are not much different. Imagine if you will, if you start teaching a works based form of Justification in a Southern Baptist Church. What do you think would happen?

If you really think about, this is no longer a dual source of authority, but a single source of authority – the Church. Scripture and tradition form the source material of divine revelation, but it is the Church that is able to infallibly interpret divine revelation; therefore, authority is invested in the Church alone (or Sola Ecclesia).

Yes you are finally starting to get it. Here is the thing. Jesus Christ didn't leave us a Bible did He? What did He leave us with? A Church.

Now one thing that you may be confused about is what does infallibility mean? Infallibility doesn't mean that whatever you say is true. Actually infallibility is a limitation, not a power. An infallible Church doesn't mean that it can teach whatever it wants and that you have to believe it. No an infallible Church means that it can only teach the truth, no matter how much it wants or not wants to. For example there are many many Catholics, including bishops, who wishes that the Church would change its position on things like abortion, artificial birth control, gay marriage, etc.; yet they keep coming across this big wall that they can't seem to get around so they can make these changes. The wall is, quite frankly, the Church can't, not that it wouldn't, but can't change its teachings concerning these questions.

At one time the majority of Christians, including the Emperor of the Roman Empire, were Arians; and that those who held to the Orthodox faith were the minority. But no matter how many they converted to their view, no matter who was converted, the Arians could not change the teaching of the Church. It couldn't, because of that wall. And now, Arianism in its pure form is no more, except for sects like the JW; and the Catholic Church still teaches the orthodox view of the Trinity. Something to think about.

The Reformers rejected the idea of an infallible Church. They recognized that even the best of men could make mistakes. Only the word of God is declared to be divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). As divinely inspired, only the Scriptures can rightly said to be infallible. Therefore, the Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church by declaring Scripture alone to be the only, infallible rule of faith and practice.

Well a couple of things. The Rebels had to reject the infallible Church. If they didn't it would be kind of hard to rebel wouldn't it? How many people could they have swayed to their side if their selling point was "hey the Church is infallible, but we are going to go against it anyway, so who is with us!" I think the Protestant Rebellion would have ended much differently. So their problem fell to what can we claim as ultimate authority? Well the teaching of Bible was the only thing that could be manipulated to say whatever they wanted. So that made perfect sense.

The point being is simple, there is no such thing as a Sola Scriptura church. It doesn't exist. Why? Because everyone reads Scripture through the lens of their faith tradition, or someone else's faith tradition. The only way I could buy the idea of Sola Scriptura is that if every church that taught this as doctrine, had at the end of the day, the exact same set of core beliefs. Maybe practices were different, some outlying doctrines; but the exact same set of core beliefs.

You know what I find interesting is that there is this thing called the "5 Solas" right? That every Protestant is suppose to believe, which would provide the core beliefs. The problem is, that Protestants can't even agree on what these five Solas actually mean. Sola Scriptura is nice in theory; but in practical terms falls flat on its face.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Actually I would say that Sola Scriptura is essentially a question about perception of authority. The Catholic Church freely admits that she has a set core of Doctrines, which we call the Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition, by which we interpret Scripture and guide our practices. Most Protestants, except maybe Lutherans and Anglicans, deny the fact that they have a faith tradition of their own, by which they interpret Scripture and guide their practices. The problem is every single Protestant denomination has its on Faith Tradition, it is just denied, because the word "tradition" has been made into a bad word due to Protestant apologetics.

This is a false statement. Sacred Tradition is the WHOLE Deposit of Faith, the full Public Revelation. Most of which is found in Scripture, but not all. In all reality even though Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is viewed as separate, Sacred Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition.

One other thing, there really is three sources of authority, not two. The other being the Magisterium, i.e. the body of Bishops. All three sources of authority are needed.

Well you started off right, but the last sentence is questionable. The Magisterium, which the pope is a member of, does not claim sole interpretation of Scripture. Private interpretation is quite acceptable, as long as it does not conflict with the teaching of the faith. In all reality, non-Catholic churches are not much different. Imagine if you will, if you start teaching a works based form of Justification in a Southern Baptist Church. What do you think would happen?

Yes you are finally starting to get it. Here is the thing. Jesus Christ didn't leave us a Bible did He? What did He leave us with? A Church.

Now one thing that you may be confused about is what does infallibility mean? Infallibility doesn't mean that whatever you say is true. Actually infallibility is a limitation, not a power. An infallible Church doesn't mean that it can teach whatever it wants and that you have to believe it. No an infallible Church means that it can only teach the truth, no matter how much it wants or not wants to. For example there are many many Catholics, including bishops, who wishes that the Church would change its position on things like abortion, artificial birth control, gay marriage, etc.; yet they keep coming across this big wall that they can't seem to get around so they can make these changes. The wall is, quite frankly, the Church can't, not that it wouldn't, but can't change its teachings concerning these questions.

At one time the majority of Christians, including the Emperor of the Roman Empire, were Arians; and that those who held to the Orthodox faith were the minority. But no matter how many they converted to their view, no matter who was converted, the Arians could not change the teaching of the Church. It couldn't, because of that wall. And now, Arianism in its pure form is no more, except for sects like the JW; and the Catholic Church still teaches the orthodox view of the Trinity. Something to think about.

Well a couple of things. The Rebels had to reject the infallible Church. If they didn't it would be kind of hard to rebel wouldn't it? How many people could they have swayed to their side if their selling point was "hey the Church is infallible, but we are going to go against it anyway, so who is with us!" I think the Protestant Rebellion would have ended much differently. So their problem fell to what can we claim as ultimate authority? Well the teaching of Bible was the only thing that could be manipulated to say whatever they wanted. So that made perfect sense.

The point being is simple, there is no such thing as a Sola Scriptura church. It doesn't exist. Why? Because everyone reads Scripture through the lens of their faith tradition, or someone else's faith tradition. The only way I could buy the idea of Sola Scriptura is that if every church that taught this as doctrine, had at the end of the day, the exact same set of core beliefs. Maybe practices were different, some outlying doctrines; but the exact same set of core beliefs.

You know what I find interesting is that there is this thing called the "5 Solas" right? That every Protestant is suppose to believe, which would provide the core beliefs. The problem is, that Protestants can't even agree on what these five Solas actually mean. Sola Scriptura is nice in theory; but in practical terms falls flat on its face.

I don't quite agree with all your statements but I really enjoyed your post. A lot of good info.

 

[Erose]

I don't quite agree with all your statements but I really enjoyed your post. A lot of good info.

Thank you. Hopefully it didn't come off as snippish, if it did I apologize. It seems that I'm in quite a few threads discussing this very thing, with a wide variety of folks. Quite honestly your post is one of the more rational ones I have read.

 

[BobRyan]

Essentially what Scripture alone boils down to is a question of authority. Who, or what, has the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice? This was the underlying dispute between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church. .

True - and as we see in placed like Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 - it is the Bible - the scriptures -- that have final say even to the point of hammering supposedly "sacred" church tradition in Mark 7 'sola scriptura'

 

[Erose]

True - and as we see in placed like Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 - it is the Bible - the scriptures -- that have final say even to the point of hammering supposedly "sacred" church tradition in Mark 7 'sola scriptura'

So, I guess the question I have here is did the Jews believe in Sola Scriptura or did they have a Sacred Tradition(s)?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

So, I guess the question I have here is did the Jews believe in Sola Scriptura or did they have a Sacred Tradition(s)?

The pattern was the same for the Israelites as it was for the early church... they felt they needed to add to what was given through their councils and traditions. The Talmud is the perfect example of mans tradition gone wrong against the intended purpose. In fact, one can easily see the similarities between the Talmud and the traditions of the RC church... each based on truth given but twisted to suit mans desire and not God's.

 

[Erose]

The pattern was the same for the Israelites as it was for the early church... they felt they needed to add to what was given through their councils and traditions. The Talmud is the perfect example of mans tradition gone wrong against the intended purpose. In fact, one can easily see the similarities between the Talmud and the traditions of the RC church... each based on truth given but twisted to suit mans desire and not God's.

Ok, so at least you agree with the fact that the Jews, did not believe in Sola Scriptura. So where did this novel concept come from in your opinion?

 

[Standing Up]

Ok, so at least you agree with the fact that the Jews, did not believe in Sola Scriptura. So where did this novel concept come from in your opinion?

Christ. "it is written". Don't believe He ever considered tradition authoritative. Do you have Him quoting tradition of any kind as on par with "it is written"? Even against the so-called pillars (priests, high priest, elders) He still held to "it is written".

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am not a Catholic - I argue that much of what you call "sacred tradition" is in fact error. But that does not mean that you do not call it "Sacred Tradition".

You are not a Jew. You argue that much of what the Jewish Magesterium taught in Mark 7:6-13 was in fact "error' but they argue that it was 'sacred tradition' -- you as an outsider to their church - differ.

Wrong. What was their error was that the Pharisees kept the rules to the letter of the law, but not to the spirit of the law. Jesus proved this when he and his apostles plucked grain on the Sabbath.

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


The point remains -- this is their so-called 'sacred tradition' getting hammered sola scriptura.

No, it's not. The Broadway show "Fiddler on the Roof" laments the disappearance of tradition. Their Sacred Tradition is their interpretation of Scripture, things like the mikveh, and so on. Our Sacred Tradition is stuff like what John 6 means, and so on. The traditions of men are things like what a priest wears, his celibacy, and other things like fasting on Fridays, all of which can, and do change.

 

[Root of Jesse]

All I can go by is what your put on here... don't know you from Adam really.

Not laughing, btw...

Well, if you follow the conversation, I asked about the 39 Articles. Bob said test them and see. I said I don't have time for that, nor interest, in the 39 Articles. I have read them, and they are not "Biblical" per se, though they may reflect things of Scripture. Some have no basis in Scripture, in our view.
I never said I have no time for Scripture, which is what you commented on, and yes, it seemed you were laughing. I'll take your word, though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Good points. RC used to claim a three-legged stool, but as you note, it's really 2 legged (their scripture and their tradition) with their magisterium, sitting upon the beam, deciding what the legs consist of.

Wrong.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Question: if jews followed traditions that were considered "sacred", does the Catholic church still follow those traditions?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Ok, so at least you agree with the fact that the Jews, did not believe in Sola Scriptura. So where did this novel concept come from in your opinion?

So many dispensations of the Hebrews that it's difficult to make blanket assessments... the Israelites, initially, were sola scriptura until the times of the Kings. Of course there was prophetic guidance at this time as well. During the time of the captivity, they received heathen instruction and traditions that then drove them deeper into apostasy and darkness until Jesus came to bring them back to the Light.

It would seem, from the example of the Hebrews, that the further on gets from sola scriptura, without prophetic guidance, the further into darkness we go... until we could do the unimaginable... kill God.