Sola Scriptura

[Publius]

Sola Scriptura is, as I understand it, the doctrine that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.

Sola scriptura simply means that God's Word is the highest authority to which all other authorities must defer and is the authority that governs all other authorities.

This doctrine is problematic for a number of reasons.

The first is that it is self refuting because it is itself extra-biblical doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is established no where in scripture.

I take it you haven't read the Bible lately.

Here are just a couple for you:

Here are a couple more for you:

2nd Kings 22:10-13 - "And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."

Matthew 4:3-4 - "And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Matthew 4:5-11 - Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Matthew 4:8 - "Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

Matthew 21:42 - "Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!"

Revelation 22:18-19 -"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar!"

Matthew 12:3-5 -"but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?"

Matthew 19:4-5 "And He answered and said unto them, have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."

Matthew 22:31-32 - "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living."

Luke 10:26 - "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Matthew 22:29 -"..Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"

Matthew 26:24 -"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".

John 5:39 - "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."

Isa 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.

And since we know how much Catholics and Orthodox love the ECF, here's a little something more for them to chew on:

Augustine of Hippo: "This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves." (Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 11, Chapter 3)

Cyril of Jerusalem: This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

Gregory of Nyssa: "The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312).

Instead, we find verses that refer to an oral tradition, countering Sola Scriptura :

How does this "counter sola scriptura" and what are these "oral traditions" if not simply verbal teaching that is backed up by scripture?

Another problem with Sola Scriptura is it assumes an ability on the part of every individual in the correct way to read and interpret the scriptures and this is demonstrably false.

Actually, that isn't what sola scriptura is at all.

today, there are literally thousands of different protestant sects, each with their own spin on the Bible.

Let me guess: 38.000 denominations? That claim is often made by Catholics, even though we continue on an almost daily basis to correct them and explain why this number has been debunked so many times.

Since many of these interpretations conflict with and contradict each other, it is by necessity that not everyone's interpretation is correct.

Could you please name any two doctrines defined by scripture as being essential doctrines and then tell us which two denominations disagree over them and what those disagreements are.

No object outside standard is offered against which to test the individual's interpretation.

Again, not true. We have creeds, confessions, catechisms, and the authority of the Church.

But in 1st John 4:1, the author writes, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

And how are we to test these spirits if not by the objective and authoritative standard of scripture?

It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test their own ideas.

If sola scriptura were actually what you're claiming it is, then you'd be right. It would be circular reasoning. But your description doesn't sound like any description you'd find among those of us who actually practice sola scriptura and have studied the history behind it.

But since you brought up "circular reasoning", how is sola ecclesia not circular reasoning? It would seem to me that "The Catholic Church is infallible because the Catholic Church has declared itself to be infallible" would be the very definition of circular reasoning.

The very story and nature of both the Bible itself and the story told within the Bible is contrary to very notion of Sola Scriptura on every single level.

How so?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Nor do we accept that Christ appointed Peter to a position that didn't exist for another 400 years, wasn't mentioned in that verse, was rescinded a few verses later (I know that no Catholic cares about THOSE verses), and conflicts with the purpose for which Peter was chosen to proclaim the message of the Messiah.
IOW, there's no point in making your argument just to make it for the jillionth time, knowing it's just a theory.

Tis a Catholic thang

http://www.christianforums.com/t6958045-43/#post44224326
Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

Originally Posted by Catholic Christian I'm just being a jerk. LittleLamb starts so many hreads on the popes, that I quit being serious after the first thousand. Now I just poke and prod him with links and giant pictures:

 

[Standing Up]

It's about Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture plus tradition.

What does that mean? What are you trying to say? Some use SS as the rule of faith. Some use S + T as the rule of faith.

 

[Abrahamist]

What does that mean? What are you trying to say? Some use SS as the rule of faith. Some use S + T as the rule of faith.

I use S + T. Scripture alone, IMO, is clearly not adequate as no universal agreement can reached to it's meaning outside of the guide of tradition.

 

[Albion]

I use S + T. Scripture alone, IMO, is clearly not adequate as not universal agreement can reached to it's meaning outside of the guide of tradition.

which tradition?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Abrahamist It's about Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture plus tradition.

Originally Posted by Standing Up What does that mean? What are you trying to say? Some use SS as the rule of faith. Some use S + T as the rule of faith.

Originally Posted by Abrahamist I use S + T. Scripture alone, IMO, is clearly not adequate as not universal agreement can reached to it's meaning outside of the guide of tradition.

which tradition?

Is there any better tradition than that of Jesus?

Mark 7:8 "Leaving the command of the God,
ye are holding to the tradition of the men

2 Thessalonians 3:6 But we command ye brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly
and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Sola scriptura simply means that God's Word is the highest authority to which all other authorities must defer and is the authority that governs all other authorities.

But to whose interpretation of God's Word should we yield?

And how are we to test these spirits if not by the objective and authoritative standard of scripture?

Well, each person would test the spirits according to their perception or interpretation of the Word of God. It is then a matter of whose interpretation the person has adopted -- his own unique and personal interpretation? That of the Catholic Church? That of a Lutheran Synod?

If sola scriptura were actually what you're claiming it is, then you'd be right. It would be circular reasoning. But your description doesn't sound like any description you'd find among those of us who actually practice sola scriptura and have studied the history behind it.

But since you brought up "circular reasoning", how is sola ecclesia not circular reasoning? It would seem to me that "The Catholic Church is infallible because the Catholic Church has declared itself to be infallible" would be the very definition of circular reasoning.

...except we don't say "The Catholic Church is infallible because the Catholic Church has declared itself to be infallible"; we might say that it is infallible because God has given it the protection from dogmatically defining erroneous teachings.

 

[Albion]

...except we don't say "The Catholic Church is infallible because the Catholic Church has declared itself to be infallible"; we might say that it is infallible because God has given it the protection from dogmatically defining erroneous teachings.

The Church doesn't claim to be protected against erroneous teachings; it admits to having made mistakes. It does claim to be infallible under certain circumstances only...and says that God has conferred that power on it, of course. But it's only the Church that we have to back up that claim. There's nothing in scripture or tradition that would make any human or group of humans infallible at any time.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown ...except we don't say "The Catholic Church is infallible because the Catholic Church has declared itself to be infallible"; we might say that it is infallible because God has given it the protection from dogmatically defining erroneous teachings.

The Church doesn't claim to be protected against erroneous teachings; it admits to having made mistakes. It does claim to be infallible under certain circumstances only...and says that God has conferred that power on it, of course.
But it's only the Church that we have to back up that claim. There's nothing in scripture or tradition that would make any human or group of humans infallible at any time.

According to this poster, Catholicism would be made up of fundamentalists?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7641528/#post60150085

Originally Posted by William II The Doctrine of Inerrancy is what fundamentalism is based on.

 

[Standing Up]

I use S + T. Scripture alone, IMO, is clearly not adequate as no universal agreement can reached to it's meaning outside of the guide of tradition.

which tradition?

The merry go round has started.

 

[Jerushabelle]

I'm curious about something. I'm not familiar with all doctrine of all denominations but can someone tell me if they pretty much all believe in prophecy? I'm not derailing the thread, just hang with me a sec.

 

[Abrahamist]

Sola scriptura simply means that God's Word is the highest authority to which all other authorities must defer and is the authority that governs all other authorities.

More specifically, in Sola Scriptura, God's Word is defined as spefically as scripture at the exclusion of Oral Tradition.

At least, this is the way I have come to understand it. If I am coming to understand it better as this thread goes but so far, I am no more convinced of it's validity.

I take it you haven't read the Bible lately.

Here are just a couple for you:

Here are a couple more for you:

2nd Kings 22:10-13 - "And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

But it is tradition that establishes that the book is the word of God.

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."

This is not saying that scripture at the exclusion of tradition. It is tradition that establishes what is scripture.

Matthew 4:3-4 - "And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Matthew 4:5-11 - Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Matthew 4:8 - "Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

Matthew 21:42 - "Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!"

Revelation 22:18-19 -"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar!"

Matthew 12:3-5 -"but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?"

Matthew 19:4-5 "And He answered and said unto them, have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."

Matthew 22:31-32 - "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living."

Luke 10:26 - "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Matthew 22:29 -"..Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"

Matthew 26:24 -"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".

John 5:39 - "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."

Isa 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.

Again, the argument I am presenting here is NOT that the scriptures are not an authority but that the scriptures are incomplete without the guide of tradition.

And since we know how much Catholics and Orthodox love the ECF, here's a little something more for them to chew on:

Augustine of Hippo: "This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves." (Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 11, Chapter 3)

Cyril of Jerusalem: This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

Gregory of Nyssa: "The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312).

I see nothing hear that contradicts my position.

How does this "counter sola scriptura" and what are these "oral traditions" if not simply verbal teaching that is backed up by scripture?

Part of the Oral Tradition is the actual practice of the religion. The stories in the Bible are not just to be told verbally but also to be acted out. Also, the oral tradition is doctrine not found explicitly in scripture but derived from scripture, for example the Trinity.

Actually, that isn't what sola scriptura is at all.

That's the way it was applied at the church I used to attend as a child. They taught that God communicated directly to the individual through the Bible. I'm gaining a greater understanding of what sola scriptura means in its historical and that it hasn't always been applied in such absurd ways.

But at the same time, I find that the support offered for Sola Scriptura before Luther assumes that support is there instead of using the text to arrive at Sola scriptura. I assuming that these same men also adhered to their religious practice and so I am not interpreting their words to come to the same conclusion.

Let me guess: 38.000 denominations? That claim is often made by Catholics, even though we continue on an almost daily basis to correct them and explain why this number has been debunked so many times.

I don't know and don't really care. They have split enough that the confusion is evident without knowing the specific number.

Could you please name any two doctrines defined by scripture as being essential doctrines and then tell us which two denominations disagree over them and what those disagreements are.

I don't know the specifics anymore because it's been better than a decade since I was considering the different protestant branches. I did observe that the Church of Christ believed the Baptists were wrong who believed the Charismatics were wrong about all kinds of different things.

My old Church taught that to be saved, you had to ask Jesus into your heart. The Baptists teach that you have to make a commitment to following Jesus and that you have to keep it. I think that's basically what the CoC believes too. I think the CoC believes that you have to be Baptized for sins whereas the Baptists believe that you have to be baptized into the church.

I'm not the exact verses this is all based on. I've seen different people point out different verses to me.

I've been in more liberal Churches that taught that God loves everyone and that what their religion is doesn't matter. I've also been in ultrafundie churches that believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis and that anyone who disagreed was going to Hell.

I've yet to here an explanation of the Protestant Christian that made any sense at all.

Again, not true. We have creeds, confessions, catechisms, and the authority of the Church.

Again, the way that I have seen Sola Scriptura applied as at the exclusion of this, except for the authority of the particular church I attended. My old church had no creeds, confessions or catechisms that were tied to any historical roots. It was a nondenominational church.

And how are we to test these spirits if not by the objective and authoritative standard of scripture?

What if it is the spirit that is telling you how to read the scripture? Then how do test the spirit against the scripture?

If sola scriptura were actually what you're claiming it is, then you'd be right. It would be circular reasoning. But your description doesn't sound like any description you'd find among those of us who actually practice sola scriptura and have studied the history behind it.

The history behind it is the key thing. You are appear to be assuming a history with scripture beside tradition (Like catechisms, confessions, etc) instead of at the exclusion of tradition. In many protestant churches, people apply sola scriptura at the exclusion of tradition to interpret the Bible to mean whatever they want to.

But since you brought up "circular reasoning", how is sola ecclesia not circular reasoning? It would seem to me that "The Catholic Church is infallible because the Catholic Church has declared itself to be infallible" would be the very definition of circular reasoning.

That is circular reason and so the claim of their infallibility has to be verified externally.

Their claim is specifically that their teachings the Bible is infallible and this claim has merit if it can be historically demonstrate that it was in fact them that wrote, copied and canonized the Bible. And the history demonstrates to my satisfaction this to be the truth.

How so?

In that the Word of God was not just the scripture themselves but the traditions and the practice of the religion.

 

[Albion]

I'm curious about something. I'm not familiar with all doctrine of all denominations but can someone tell me if they pretty much all believe in prophecy? I'm not derailing the thread, just hang with me a sec.

I'll give it a try. If you mean prophesy today, as opposed to the instances recoreded in scripture, most denominations believe it possible but so rare as to not have it play a role in their regular teaching or worship.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The merry go round has started.

I'm curious about something. I'm not familiar with all doctrine of all denominations but can someone tell me if they pretty much all believe in prophecy? I'm not derailing the thread, just hang with me a sec.

There is an interesting discussion on this board here is you or others are interested

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643856/#post60149287
the awaited messiah of the Jews

Originally Posted by dfw69 hello LoAmmi....do you know a good link that list all the messianic prophecies?

Shalom. There are a few threads on CF that discuss them, perhaps we can start a thread on it here if you like

http://www.christianforums.com/t7354244-6/
Prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ

http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u232664-e8200/
What is the big argument that Jesus failed to fulfill the Messiah prophecies of O.T.

.

 

[Jerushabelle]

I'll give it a try. If you mean prophesy today, as opposed to the instances recoreded in scripture, most denominations believe it possible but so rare as to not have it play a role in their regular teaching or worship.

Well, as long as all believe that it is possible, rare or not, would not all agree then that there is some form of oral tradition? I'm not speaking of oral tradition as what comes from man to man but rather from God to man, to man (allowing for the need for discernment to distinguish between the two). Even Sola Scriptura folks allow for God's speaking through prophecy and the Holy Spirit. Is not that, in a sense, a form of oral tradition within the faith?

 

[Albion]

Well, as long as all believe that it is possible, rare or not, would not all agree then that there is some form of oral tradition?

No, tradition as used in these discussions means an alternative to scripture that is identified by having a belief that is not clear in scripture considered the equivalent of scripture but ONLY if it always has been believed and by the whole church. Whether or not one accepts that theory, it isn't the same as prophesy, which is not ongoing or, for that matter, believed to break new ground with regard to doctrine. That is to say, I don't think most of these churches would admit of a supposed prophesy that says there actually are four members of the Holy Trinity, but would accept, presumably, a prophesy that deals with the date of the end of the world. After all, it's already believed that this world will end.

I'm not speaking of oral tradition as what comes from man to man but rather from God to man, to man (allowing for the need for discernment to distinguish between the two).

I understand. They are not the same.

Even Sola Scriptura folks allow for God's speaking through prophecy and the Holy Spirit. Is not that, in a sense, a form of oral tradition within the faith?

No. That we believe there is such a thing depends solely upon Scripture, and as for any particular prophesy, not if it is represented as revelation that contradicts scripture or is proffered as doctrine. The whole Scripture vs Tradition argument has to be understood as being about dogma, not just information.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The Church doesn't claim to be protected against erroneous teachings; it admits to having made mistakes.

It admits to having made mistakes in some sense... but regarding infallability and teachings:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

Clearly, this does not include instances such as a priest teaching heresy during a homily, or a bishop holding to and proclaiming a private heretical opinion.

It does claim to be infallible under certain circumstances only...and says that God has conferred that power on it, of course. But it's only the Church that we have to back up that claim. There's nothing in scripture or tradition that would make any human or group of humans infallible at any time.

Under certain circumstances only is correct, and the only thing backing up this claim is in the tradition of the Catholic Church, which includes its interpretation of the Scriptures in such a way to confirm it.

It really just comes down to whose interpretation you will accept.

 

[Abrahamist]

Well, as long as all believe that it is possible, rare or not, would not all agree then that there is some form of oral tradition? I'm not speaking of oral tradition as what comes from man to man but rather from God to man, to man (allowing for the need for discernment to distinguish between the two).

Yes. This is exactly the source of the Oral Tradition. The Oral Tradition was first given to Moses at Sinai and again through Jesus.

Even Sola Scriptura folks allow for God's speaking through prophecy and the Holy Spirit. Is not that, in a sense, a form of oral tradition within the faith?

It's the source of Oral Tradition. But I don't believe that like Mary Eddy Baker or people like that are prophets. I'm talking about Moses and Jesus.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's the source of Oral Tradition. But I don't believe that like Mary Eddy Baker or people like that are prophets. I'm talking about Moses and Jesus.

For a Jewish and Muslim perspective, please peruse this this

http://www.christianforums.com/t7283257/
How was Jesus like unto Moses?

The Muslims believe JESUS was just a prophet sent to the sons of "jacob/israel" and both Deut 18 and Acts 3 indeed confirms that.

So the question I want to ask is how was Jesus like unto Moses. We know JESUS was born of a 'virgin' but we know Moses was born of 2 Levite parents unless of course Moses was born also of a "virgin".

 

[Abrahamist]

For a Jewish and Muslim perspective, please peruse this this

I am not even interested in the Muslim religion or their take on Jesus or Judaism in this thread.