Sola Scriptural or Traditions of Men?

[Neogaia777]

Truth is living, it can be found outside of the Bible or church.

It's pretty miserable without God though...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

YHWH says no.

Really?, Where...? Scripture please...?

YHWH.

Well, you seem to speak for him, since you just decided (above) and made and (incorrect) judgment call about me (below)... So, you must be him then...?

No. There is nothing like you seem to be looking for - no unifying universal 'truth' and no you are not getting there.

So, your saying there are many 'truths" then, like the rest of the world...? And, your the "judge" huh...? You must be God then...?

ONLY YHWH thru grace and faith in Y'SHUA MESSIAH can help you, if HE is willing. No one else can.

It looks from your posts content and questions for some time obvious you are getting every day further and further from YHWH and from TRUTH.

Actually, I'm getting very close, but thanks for judging me though...

I don't blame you if you just can't handle me and what I'm saying with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Pharisees couldn't handle Christ for being "ahead of his time" either... Or Galileo, Martin Luther, or, well, just take your pick...

Ok, just answer me this please, Do you believe YHWH is Christ, and Christ is YHWH or not...?

God Bless!

 

[Colter]

It's pretty miserable without God though...

God Bless!

God is not confined to books written about him. It's better to go directly to God than be turned off by the contradiction and errors of the older opinions and speculations of holy men.

 

[Geralt]

the apostles were still alive then.

Sola scriptura is a tradition of men. Although scripture is certainly God-breathed and useful, it isn't all we have of God's revelation.

Absolutely! The earliest Christians knew the truth without scripture. They didn't need scripture because they had the Church, founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit, to tell them the truth.

 

[samir]

the apostles were still alive then.

There weren't any bibles prior to the 5th century nor was there a canon (a list of which writings were scripture) prior to the 4th century. Christians in the 3rd and most of the 4th century didn't agree on which books were scripture but that wasn't a problem since they all relied on the church to learn what Jesus taught. Even after the first bible was published, it was rare for a Christian to own a bible due to the time and cost of having to copy everything by hand and many didn't know how to read anyway. This modern idea of relying on scripture alone wasn't feasible prior to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century so there is no way Jesus would have left us with just a book.

 

[Goatee]

Your authority is Vicarius Filii Dei. Mine is the Holy Spirit.

No, still from the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition is via the Holy Spirit. Sacred Scripture is from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Geralt]

well we have them now, writings from the 1st century.
scripture alone is not about when a book was made or when it became relevant.
no need to fuss about it really.

There weren't any bibles prior to the 5th century nor was there a canon (a list of which writings were scripture) prior to the 4th century. Christians in the 3rd and most of the 4th century didn't agree on which books were scripture but that wasn't a problem since they all relied on the church to learn what Jesus taught. Even after the first bible was published, it was rare for a Christian to own a bible due to the time and cost of having to copy everything by hand and many didn't know how to read anyway. This modern idea of relying on scripture alone wasn't feasible prior to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century so there is no way Jesus would have left us with just a book.

 

[samir]

well we have them now, writings from the 1st century.
scripture alone is not about when a book was made or when it became relevant.
no need to fuss about it really.

If sola scriptura were true, Jesus would have provided a canon in the 1st century and not wait 400 years for a church that sola scripturist's reject to tell them which books were scripture.

 

[Jipsah]

The term "Sola Scriptural" is meant by relying wholly upon and only in Scripture as the basis for Church doctrines and practices. If one doesn't base one's beliefs on Scripture, what does one base it upon? The Talmud?

Generally upon their own traditions, which they read into Scripture as though it was written there. In fact, they come to believe that the stuff they "interpret" Scripture to say is what it "really means".

For instance, the SDAs, who loudly proclaim that they're Sola Scriptura folks, believe in something called "investigative judgement". This is an idea that our Lord Christ is currently in Heaven investigating everyone who ever lived or ever will to decide whether they're worthy of eternal life or not. It's an interesting belief, but one which has absolutely no basis in Scripture at all. It's simply part of their tradition.

It's right up there with people who believe, based on their denominational traditions, that one must be baptized "in Jesus Name", as opposed to "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" as our Lord Christ explicitly commanded us, to be saved. The belief has no basis in Scripture, but they hold to it as fervently as though it was the very Word of God. These folks also avow that their beliefs are from Holy Writ and nowhere else, but it requires an extraordinary amount of doublethink to buy it.

Of course, all the Sola Scriptura folks conveniently ignore the fact that the Canon of Scripture itself is a matter of tradition, and is nowhere codified in Scripture itself. Kinda hoses up their baseline. <Laugh>

Make no mistake, practices like kneeling down while praying are fine as long as it's done in humility before God.

Well I for one am glad that you don't disapprove of kneeling before Almighty God. I was afraid that I'd have to give it up.

 

[Jipsah]

Your authority is Vicarius Filii Dei.

You realize, of course, that no Catholic ever used that as a title for the Pope. Don't you? The actual title is Vicarius Christi. The version you used was invented, probably by SDAs, or someone else with as little regard for the truth, because it could be reckoned up to 666, and they wanted to stick that on the Pope. It's a pious fraud.

Mine is the Holy Spirit.

A claim made by every heresiach, ever.

 

[Geralt]

you might as well say Adam should have written the book of Genesis rather than waiting for Moses thousands of years later to write it.

God has a plan for all things, and in His time and sovereign will all things come to pass.

If sola scriptura were true, Jesus would have provided a canon in the 1st century and not wait 400 years for a church that sola scripturist's reject to tell them which books were scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

How do you know the tradition is sacred if it's not based on scripture?

What is your "sacred tradition" founded on specifically and how do you know that the foundation has Authority?

Because Scripture is based on Tradition because it IS Tradition. It isn't separate from Tradition. It is part thereof. IT is the liver. But Protestants want to say that having just the liver is the same as having the whole body.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Because Scripture is based on Tradition because it IS Tradition. It isn't separate from Tradition. It is part thereof. IT is the liver. But Protestants want to say that having just the liver is the same as having the whole body.

One of the difficulties with Tradition is that various denominations have different versions and each claims to have the one and only correct version.

 

[sculleywr]

One of the difficulties with Tradition is that various denominations have different versions and each claims to have the one and only correct version.

Actually, EVERY denomination has a version of tradition. The problem is not the having of traditions. The early Church was built in a society where the urban areas, where the highest literacy rates would be found, were only 10% literate, and that's just in those areas where people actually spoke Greek or Latin. They were forced to run on Tradition. They didn't have a choice. The results, however, are described quite well by St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies:


To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition


This is how people used Tradition. They didn't have paper or ink. They had no written language. Protestants offer us the hypothesis that such would result in a weak church, that the Church could not survive without Scripture. However, the results of this experiment are quite different:


Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

This is what happened to them. They didn't fold under pressure.

Every single denomination, church, gathering, family, community, or whatever else they are calling themselves these days, has a tradition. Some call it systematic theology. Some call it a confession. Some call it a creed. All Protestants have the traditions of the Five Solas. And yes, I call them traditions. They don't come out of Scripture. They determine how you interpret Scripture. They determine what Scripture means. Scripture does nothing to determine them. In point of fact, part of the reason that the 5th century AD Jewish canon was used to replace the BC Septuagint Canon was because the books in the Septuagint contradicted some of the five Solas. In this, the tradition was used to alter Scripture.

The problem I see with the OP is that it poses the two as if one is to be seen as superior to the other. In all reality, tradition will always be superior to Scripture for those who try to deny that they have traditions. If you do not believe that traditions determine your faith, then you will have no safeguards to prevent it from dominating your faith, because while you're busy trying to prevent the entrance of traditions outside of your perimeter, there is already an invisible enemy inside the perimeter.

Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and High church Anglicans have the opportunity to police their traditions because they know they are there and they admit that they have strings that they are pulling. It is only when you do not see the tradition pulling the strings that it is dangerous, because when you think it is the Scripture pulling the strings, but Satan has already gotten a tradition implanted to hold the real strings, you're not being truly vigilant.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, EVERY denomination has a version of tradition. The problem is not the having of traditions. The early Church was built in a society where the urban areas, where the highest literacy rates would be found, were only 10% literate, and that's just in those areas where people actually spoke Greek or Latin. They were forced to run on Tradition. They didn't have a choice. The results, however, are described quite well by St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies:


To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition


This is how people used Tradition. They didn't have paper or ink. They had no written language. Protestants offer us the hypothesis that such would result in a weak church, that the Church could not survive without Scripture. However, the results of this experiment are quite different:


Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

This is what happened to them. They didn't fold under pressure.

Every single denomination, church, gathering, family, community, or whatever else they are calling themselves these days, has a tradition. Some call it systematic theology. Some call it a confession. Some call it a creed. All Protestants have the traditions of the Five Solas. And yes, I call them traditions. They don't come out of Scripture. They determine how you interpret Scripture. They determine what Scripture means. Scripture does nothing to determine them. In point of fact, part of the reason that the 5th century AD Jewish canon was used to replace the BC Septuagint Canon was because the books in the Septuagint contradicted some of the five Solas. In this, the tradition was used to alter Scripture.

The problem I see with the OP is that it poses the two as if one is to be seen as superior to the other. In all reality, tradition will always be superior to Scripture for those who try to deny that they have traditions. If you do not believe that traditions determine your faith, then you will have no safeguards to prevent it from dominating your faith, because while you're busy trying to prevent the entrance of traditions outside of your perimeter, there is already an invisible enemy inside the perimeter.

Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and High church Anglicans have the opportunity to police their traditions because they know they are there and they admit that they have strings that they are pulling. It is only when you do not see the tradition pulling the strings that it is dangerous, because when you think it is the Scripture pulling the strings, but Satan has already gotten a tradition implanted to hold the real strings, you're not being truly vigilant.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. My question, then, is how the sincere can determine which of the vast number of traditions, if any, is actually God's tradition.

 

[sculleywr]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. My question, then, is how the sincere can determine which of the vast number of traditions, if any, is actually God's tradition.

Well, that can be done a number of ways. For me, I started by trying to prove the Trail of Blood theory of Baptists. Obviously I wasn't successful because I'm not Baptist, and am certainly not part of the ToB crowd. Mine was an intellectual path. I read the writings of the martyrs and Christians of the first centuries, taking note of what they believed and how they understood Scripture. I had a huge Excel spreadsheet listing their beliefs on the following five topics:

1. Theology proper (Who is the Father?)
2. Christology
3. Pneumatology
4. Soteriology
5. Ecclesiology

I had determined these to be the essential topics. Now, I did not know about the Orthodox Church at this point in 2009 when I started this little project. So I started comparing the churches I did know to how the early Church Fathers understood Scripture. I was looking for where the church of people who died for the faith in the first few centuries was. It wasn't until 2011 that I discovered the Orthodox Church.

For me, it was a process of comparing the tradition of the churches today to the tradition of the Church Fathers. But it is only the way that I personally know. There are many routes to the Apostolic Tradition, and I'm only familiar with the way I took.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Notice that these things:
1. Theology proper (Who is the Father?)
2. Christology
3. Pneumatology
4. Soteriology
5. Ecclesiology
Do not include what YHWH'S WORD says to test anything.
What Y'SHUA used.
What the Bereans used.
What the Apostles used.

Instead, 1 through 5 all uses what men and man's traditions use to set up themselves and to verify themselves. So , naturally, it leads to man's traditions and groups thereof,

and not to what Y'SHUA , the Bereans, and the Apostles all did.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Notice that these things:
1. Theology proper (Who is the Father?)
2. Christology
3. Pneumatology
4. Soteriology
5. Ecclesiology
Do not include what YHWH'S WORD says to test anything.
What Y'SHUA used.
What the Bereans used.
What the Apostles used.

Instead, 1 through 5 all uses what men and man's traditions use to set up themselves and to verify themselves. So , naturally, it leads to man's traditions and groups thereof,

and not to what Y'SHUA , the Bereans, and the Apostles all did.

Thank you. That was the honest path he chose and I respect him for it, although I obviously don't agree because I ended with a radically different answer not unlike your own. He is not finished with his journey and I agree with Paul that He who began a good work in him will complete it (Philippians 1:6).

For the record, my path was not so intellectual. As I studied the scriptures I began to see many problems in the churches I was attending. I saw significant differences between their traditions and beliefs and what I saw in scripture. After several years I found a small church of Christians who were determined to follow everything God showed them in the Bible. Although we may not see some things identically we have great unit through the Word of God and His Holy Spirit.

 

[smithed64]

Sola Scriptura is one of the cornerstones of the Reformation and pervasive in Protestant theology. But I think because it's become unmoored from its historical context that the phrase is sometimes misunderstood leading to problems. "Scripture alone" is sometimes understood as "Bible only" - the Bible is our only source of truth about God. That understanding can lead to fideism, which isn't a Biblical understanding of faith.

In the Reformation, with the break from the Roman Catholic Church, the phrase "sola Scripture" meant that the Bible was the only infallible revealed authority for faith and practice in contrast with the Roman Church that also claimed authority on par with Scripture. These, of course by the 16th century, had led to great excesses of theology that obscured and even hid the Gospel. The Reformers were drawing attention back to the only source of authoritative revelation in Scripture. The other cornerstones, "grace alone" and "faith alone" also contrasted with Catholic theology of requiring works and penance for salvation in addition to God's grace.

So "Scripture alone" didn't mean that the Bible is the only source of truth because, in fact, Scripture itself tells us that truth and knowledge can be gained from creation, experience, and God-given reason. Yet all of that has to be measured against the special revelation in the Bible. Maybe a better way to phrase it now would be "Bible supreme."

This is also why the objection that "sola Scriptura" is self-refuting because it's not found in the Bible doesn't work because it doesn't mean Bible only.

In addition to restoring the great good news of grace through Jesus, the Reformation also recognized Scripture as the only infallible authoritative source and rule for faith and practice.

 

[BobRyan]

The term "Sola Scriptural" is meant by relying wholly upon and only in Scripture as the basis for Church doctrines and practices. If one doesn't base one's beliefs on Scripture, what does one base it upon? The Talmud?

Make no mistake, practices like kneeling down while praying are fine as long as it's done in humility before God. God doesn't care about your physical position while you pray, it's about your state of mind. Are you driven to prostrate yourself before God, or are you kneeling down for the sake of doing it? Tradition for the interests of tradition. Do as you are told, that's tradition.

What is the purpose of church tradition and observance? Many do it unquestionably because that's what they think Christianity is. Unless one can explain the purpose of a particular Church tradition and its foundation in scripture, is it necessary to follow the custom? Is Christianity a religion based on tradition or is it based on the truth? Can truth be known without scripture as the measuring rod? For beliefs to be valid, it must not contradict the Word of God. There's nothing worst than unbiblical traditions. Scripture gives us a solid ground on which to base Church beliefs and doctrines.

As been written in 2 Timothy 3:16, All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

A great example of Christ solving this problem for us - showing us how to hammer the "Traditions of men" - the traditions of the magisterium of His day - is in Mark 7:6-13.

in Mark 7:6-13 Jesus condemns the religious leaders of his day for daring to set aside even one of the commandments of God and replace it with the traditions of man.

Mark 7
And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written " This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7"But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother" and, "He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death" 11 but you say,"If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God)" 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."