Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[zoidar]

becasue it is the Church described in the Bible. It is His Church

What are all other churches then? Who's are they?

I've been a Christian for ten years. If this is true, why haven't God told me?

 

[Barney2.0]

Yes, but if you are saying that the information found in scripture has been transmitted, in history, both by the written word and also by word of mouth, that isn't to speak of separate and different authorities. It is only the mode of transmission you are referring to.

The theory called 'Sacred Tradition' DOES posit that there is a second set of revelations, however, and that it is equally as authoritative as the Bible.

So then you admit that the scripture relied on information transmitted orally as well and not merely on itself, so there are different authorities here and you sort of contradicted yourself there. The Bible itself lays claim to that tradition which you call a “theory.”

What you are calling "tradition" there is merely the status, the respect, that the religious leaders enjoyed and had long enjoyed.

All sorts of organizations have leaders, and they are generally respected, but that doesn't mean that the leaders are deemed to be infallible or that there are no by-laws, Constitutions, or written rules of conduct that the organization adheres to.

Christ also says to observe what they teach when it’s actually right, the Pharisees also taught oral tradition and had there own tradition going back to Moses which Christ referenced here by saying “they sit on the seat of Moses.” So it’s not merely their status as religious leaders otherwise he wouldn’t have said “do what they tell you.”

That's what the theory says, but a close look at it will show that the claims are not backed up by actual history. Nor, for that matter, do we find the early church leaders voicing their belief in such a notion. We do find them saying that they base their religious convictions on Scripture, though.

Saint Irenaeus has a response for you:

The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles. (Against Heresies, 2, 9, 1)If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries . . . On all these points we may indeed say a great deal while we search into their causes, but God alone who made them can declare the truth regarding them. (Against Heresies, 2, 28, 2)

If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] Which belongs only to God, and others which come with in the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God? . . . If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. (Against Heresies, 2, 28, 3)

. . . the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, . . . (Against Heresies, 3, Preface)

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Against Heresies, 3, 2, 2)

First, there are indeed a number of Protestant churches which have Apostolic Succession.

And second, Apostolic Succession, as it is believed in by the Catholic churches is based on the Bible.

Ask any educated Catholic to defend it, and he will immediately cite a number of Scripture passages, arguing, for instance, that we read therein that the Apostles chose successors, that the Apostles were given a leadership position by Christ that is not what every priest has, and so on.

No Protestant Church has Apostolic succession, your own Church, the Anglican Church was founded by a king who divorced himself from the Latin Papacy after it refused to divorce him from his wife and put himself as the head of his own Church. Other Protestant denominations are no different. I can also quote from the early Church Father’s and their succession in a chain all the way back to the Apostles, I don’t need scripture on its own to prove that.

The authority of Scripture has been recognized by the churches since the first century. It is specifically mentioned as authoritative in the Nicene Creed, and as I said earlier, the early church fathers affirmed it...specifically. If there is no competing and equal authority recognized, this amounts to Scriptura and it is Sola, by definition!

Of course it is an authority, no one is denying that so that’s a strawman on your part, Sola Scriptura means it’s the final authority, so you need to also prove that any of the Church Father’s appealed to it above Church authority, when we know they didn’t. Also your making an argument of silence, but luckily there isn’t a “silence” anyways, the Church Father’s also affirm the authority of the Church and its Apostolic Succession and it’s Apostolic tradition.

No other authority did determine its existence.

Are you serious? How do we even know who wrote the books of the New Testament without early Church Tradition, the Church and the Fathers decided the canonicity of the Bible in numerous councils, the Bible didn’t do that to itself or pre-exist itself.

 

[Barney2.0]

Until you read it. And find
Isaiah 8: 20 "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light"

Acts 17:11 where we find non-Christians "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul --- were SO"

The “word” Isaiah was speaking refers to the revelation he was receiving not necessarily to the written scriptures. The Non-Christians, probably the Jews in this case studied the scriptures in the synagogue when they were read to them in the liturgy.

 

[concretecamper]

What are all other churches then? Who's are they?

not His

I've been a Christian for ten years. If this is true, why haven't God told me?

The Holy Spirit is always active drawing people to Himself. We need to be listening.

 

[Barney2.0]

Mark 7:6-13 is a case of Christ slam-hammering the supposedly sacred tradition of the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai -- "sola scriptura"

Mark 7
6 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.”


Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

The sacred Apostolic tradition of the Church isn’t the same as the man made tradition of the Pharisees.

Is it your argument that the mere quote of that part of your post is - "a straw man"?? seriously?

Frankly I was quite surprised that you would ask that we look at the example above in Mark 7 as though it is making the case for your argument. I find "the details" in Mark 7 working exactly how the "sola scriptura" model would predict.

Except for the fact that I’m not talking about the tradition of the Pharisees which Christ also didn’t condemn as a whole, but accepted what was right.

There is no doubt that this is precisely the argument that the jewish magisterium was making. But notice how Christ "settles it"? - He appeals not to "His opinion vs theirs" but rather "thus says the Lord" - Scripture.

That’s definitely not the same argument Christ never rejected all the traditions of the Pharisees, Matthew appeals to oral tradition to prove Christ is the Messiah in Matthew 2:23. Thus says the Lord doesn’t always refer to scripture.

That's true - for example the Pharisees accepted the teaching of scripture on the subject of the futre resurrection of the dead.

And they mostly relied on oral tradition for this belief, while the Sadducees who held to Sola Scriptura like yourself rejected the concept of the afterlife or resurrection of the dead since it was not clearly mentioned in the Old Testament. So your arguing against yourself here.

 

[zoidar]

not His
The Holy Spirit is always active drawing people to Himself. We need to be listening.

I would not agree with that, since were God's children are, there also is God the Holy Spirit.

I'm not against RCC or EOC, or any other church where the risen Christ is proclaimed and worshipped.

What I don't think is right is to focus on converting Christians from one church to another. I have seen it among protestants, and seen it among Catholics. The focus for us Christians should be to "make Christians", IOW, get people saved. What church one belongs to isn't IMO of much importance.

 

[BBAS 64]

So you’ve proved to me from the Church Fathers that scripture is a authority to be used, great I believe that, where did any of them say Sola authority or say it is the final authority in matters of faith, doctrines, or morals? On the contrary many of them also affirm tradition as another authority on par with scripture:

Papias

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).

Irenaeus

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Clement of Alexandria

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

Athanasius

“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).

Basil the Great

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

Augustine

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

John Chrysostom

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

Good Day, Al

How long do you suppose we do this.. I looked up some of these. Can we agree at the end of the day the question is really one of authority?

Why do I believe the Scripture is the final infallible authority in these matters.

2 Tim 3:14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Because Scripture is breathed out of God, and therefore it ontologically has the same authority and infallibility as God Himself. His breath is the source of Scripture there is nothing else that can claim the same authority, and be taken seriously.

Chrysostom (349-407): HOMILY IX 2 Timothy iii. 16, 17.— For this reason he writes: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.”

Irenaeus:

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Why is it you find the Scriptures not sufficient to be the final infallible authority?

In Him,

Bill

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

OP changes the entire meaning of "Sola Scripture".

 

[zoidar]

Good Day, Al

How long do you suppose we do this.. I looked up some of these. Can we agree at the end of the day the question is really one of authority?

Why do I believe the Scripture is the final authority in these matters. Is scripture enough to know scripture?

2 Tim 3:14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Because Scripture is breathed out of God, and therefore it ontologically has the same authority as God Himself. His breath is the source of Scripture there is nothing else that can claim the same authority, and be taken seriously.

Irenaeus:

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Why is it you find the Scriptures not sufficient to be the final authority?

In Him,

Bill

Maybe because without tradition we can't know what they say? Is scripture enough to know scripture?

 

[Albion]

So then you admit that the scripture relied on information transmitted orally as well and not merely on itself, so there are different authorities here and you sort of contradicted yourself there.

I don't think so. I clearly said that you are referring to the mode of transmission, not to different authorities.

This is not something obscure or even controversial. Not even people who are advocates of "Sacred Tradition," so-called, claim that merely because I tell you that Christ rose from the dead instead of handing you a book that recounts the event, that this means we have two different authorities for doctrine.

The Bible itself lays claim to that tradition which you call a “theory.”

Again, you are confusing traditions with "Sacred Tradition" which is an arbitrary term.

Christ also says to observe what they teach when it’s actually right, the Pharisees also taught oral tradition and had there own tradition going back to Moses which Christ referenced here by saying “they sit on the seat of Moses.” So it’s not merely their status as religious leaders otherwise he wouldn’t have said “do what they tell you.”

But Sacred Tradition does not have a doctrine that is thought to be true simply because the Pharisees had believed in it. If I am wrong about this, produce such a doctrine for us to consider. The point of Sacred Tradition is supposed to be that X --which is not otherwise known by reference to Scripture, in which case we wouldn't need anything but Scripture--is a true doctrine because it has been part of the CHRISTIAN church throughout time and in every part of the Church.

That has zero to do with what any pre-Jesus Pharisee taught.

Saint Irenaeus has a response for you:

The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles. (Against Heresies, 2, 9, 1)If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists.

For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect....

There's nothing there about Sacred Tradition. It doesn't meet any of the necessary elements to be speaking of Sacred Tradition. But of course it gives an unqualified endorsement of, guess what?--SCRIPTURE.

If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] Which belongs only to God, and others which come with in the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God,

and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God? . . . If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. (Against Heresies, 2, 28, 3)

Again, this is an endorsement of Scripture, not something else. He is saying that if Scripture does not tell us something or other, we leave it in the hands of God. That is the exact opposite of what you are contending for, that we also have another and equal source of needed information, Sacred Tradition.

No Protestant Church has Apostolic succession, your own Church, the Anglican Church was founded by a king who divorced himself from the Latin Papacy after it refused to divorce him from his wife and put himself as the head of his own Church. Other Protestant denominations are no different.

Well, you are either terribly uninformed about these things or else have bought into the claims of the Churches of Rome or Alexandria or Constantinople without hesitation.

All you are doing here is reciting their claims. They say that other churches don't have Apostolic Succession so you nod in agreement. In truth, the Anglican and Episcopal churches, plus the largest of the Lutheran bodies in the USA, the Churches of Norway and Sweden, and also others have preserved Apostolic Succession. But that's almost incidental here since Apostolic Succession doesn't prove Sacred Tradition as a supplement to Scripture anyway.

Are you serious? How do we even know who wrote the books of the New Testament without early Church Tradition, the Church and the Fathers decided the canonicity of the Bible in numerous councils, the Bible didn’t do that to itself or pre-exist itself.

Yes. The Church determined which books were inspired and which were not. That merely identifies what constitutes Scripture.

It doesn't mean that something supplements Scripture or replaces it? Don't you see that? The process of identifying the books of the Bible is like finding a fossil of a Mastodon or a dinosaur. Once it is found, it reveals to us some facts about that long dead animal. But you are trying to say that the man who found the stone became at that moment a fossil himself, thanks only to him having dug in the right place!

 

[BBAS 64]

Maybe because without tradition we can't know what they say? Is scripture enough to know scripture?

Good Day, Pete

Not sure how you are using tradition. I can say this the documentation line that represents what Scripture is historically is massive when compared to any documentary history for any other written work in antiquity.

History answers the question.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Albion]

Maybe because without tradition we can't know what they say? Is scripture enough to know scripture?

Yes, Scripture is enough to know Scripture.

The fact that the Church decided which books belong in the Bible does not mean that the process of investigating the matter is equal to what was found.

 

[BobRyan]

Now let us reject the traditions of man (Sola Scriptura):

“They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.” You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men

Mark 7:7-8

Mark 7:6-13 is a case of Christ slam-hammering the supposedly sacred tradition of the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai -- "sola scriptura"

Mark 7
6 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.”


Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

So you ignored pretty much the majority of my post to tackle a strawman,

Is it your argument that the mere quote of that part of your post is - "a straw man"?? seriously?

Frankly I was quite surprised that you would ask that we look at the example above in Mark 7 as though it is making the case for your argument. I find "the details" in Mark 7 working exactly how the "sola scriptura" model would predict.

there’s a difference between man made traditions and inspired tradition

There is no doubt that this is precisely the argument that the jewish magisterium was making. But notice how Christ "settles it"? - He appeals not to "His opinion vs theirs" but rather "thus says the Lord" - Scripture quoted verbatim.

The sacred Apostolic tradition of the Church isn’t the same as the man made tradition of the Pharisees.

You keep insisting that - as if Christians might be inclined to reject the pattern/model/method Christ uses in Mark 7 via the circular argument you are proposing just then.

But you aren't actually showing the logic for it.

We probably all agree that Christ did not have "some other magisterium" to go to for the case of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai. As you seem to be claiming many denominations to choose from and some certain one in your view is not to be questioned... But that is irrelevant to the text.

The model Christ gives us is not of the form "use this method unless you find that your preferred magisterium is not to be questioned".

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe because without tradition we can't know what they say? Is scripture enough to know scripture?

Why would we need "a guy writing outside of scripture" to read what the guys wrote "in scripture"?

Did Peter say "Hey! Stop reading that Bible - don't read any more for a few centuries until someone else comes along and tells you what to read"??

 

[BNR32FAN]

With complete respect for you, the explanation here is mistaken. Sola Scriptura, like the Bible itself, says what it says. The fact that various people come up with all sorts of strange interpretations of that doesn't in any way mean that this is inherent in the concept of Scripture Alone as the definer of essential doctrine.

But is someone holding to sola scriptura if their interpretations are contradictory to what the scriptures are plainly stating?

 

[BobRyan]

But is someone holding to sola scriptura if their interpretations are contradictory to what the scriptures are plainly stating?

Suppose for example I way

"Hey here is John 3:16 -- it is clearly teaching that easter bunnies eat blue cheese". You "might" use that to say "ahh I have my proof that sola scriptura does not work". But in fact - the argument made about John 3:16 and "blue cheese" makes it "highly unsuccessful" as a compelling argument. Its appeal to scripture only further undercuts its ability to be accepted and shows how "sola scriptura" does not support bad ideas.

By contrast - in Mark 7:6-13 Christ uses a sola scriptura method to totally slam hammer the tradition of the Pharisees.

 

[concretecamper]

Maybe because without tradition we can't know what they say? Is scripture enough to know scripture?

Someone made a good point earlier. Everyone is posting their case. It can go on and on. Using snippets from the Church Fathers to "prove" their point.

Jesus tells us to listen to the Church. He never told us to listen to the Bible. Is the Bible profitable? Absolutely.

In comes down to Authority. If you are obstinate and reject human authority, all you have left is the Bible, so therefore that argument is made.

 

[Albion]

But is someone holding to sola scriptura if their interpretations are contradictory to what the scriptures are plainly stating?

Probably yes. That is to say that Sola Scriptura is a term that refers to a method by which the church determines essential doctrine, not something else.

And the method doesn't prejudge the meaning of any particular verse; the point is simply that it's Scripture, not legends, folklore, dictates of Popes, or anything else like that on which dogma can rightly be made. Just the word of God.

That said, if we believe Scripture is our rule, different people are likely to read Scripture differently, that's true. They cannot all be correct, but using Sola Scriptura as one's guide does not in itself determine the outcome.

The same is true, by the way, for the churches that follow Sacred Tradition. There are a number of such denominations and no two of them have come up with the same doctrines, although all of them say to be guided by Tradition.

 

[concretecamper]

The same is true, by the way, for the churches that follow Sacred Tradition. There are a number of such denominations and no two of them have come up with the same doctrines, although all of them say to be guided by Tradition.

Exactly. There are many false Traditions. Not as many as false scriptural interpretations but they are out there.

The correct Tradition and correct scriptural interpretation is found only in His Church. His Church that has Authority, is One, and is Visible (whichever Church that is).

 

[zoidar]

Why would we need "a guy writing outside of scripture" to read what the guys wrote "in scripture"?

Did Peter say "Hey! Stop reading that Bible - don't read any more for a few centuries until someone else comes along and tells you what to read"??

But think about it. Everything isn't written down in the Bible. The apostles had more knowledge of matters than is written down. Most likely it's the same with those that knew the apostles. They could always ask the apostles about verses and chapters that was hard to understand. So the early Church is a very useful tool. God bless!