Sola Scripture -V- Traditions

[Katy-follower]

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160)

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16)

The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21)

When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)

The Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example (Psalm 119:142), “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. The Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29)

Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in (Mark 7:13): "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do" - Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in (Proverbs 30:5-6): "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar" - God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

The Lord’s strong, clear declaration in (Isaiah 8:20) is: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" - The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

Psalm 36:9 explains: "For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light" - God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. Apostle Paul said the same thing, "These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" - It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (John 3:18-21, 2 Corinthians 4:3-7).

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, (2 Peter 1:20-21): "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" - Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.


Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth - "it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth" (1 John 5:6)

The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written: "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor 4:6)

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7) - The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

John 17:17 - “Thy word is truth.”

Psalm 119:160 - “Thy word is true from the beginning.”

Titus 1:2 - “God who cannot lie.”


The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?

The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Acts 17:11 says, "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's Word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim 3:16). Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture effectively leaves the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?

If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in Sacred Tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.

Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.

Nevertheless, the Catholic will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?


To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.

One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition, as is stated in Hebrew 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.

CONCLUSION

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.

 

[FireOnTheAltar]

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160)

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16)

The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21)

When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)

The Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example (Psalm 119:142), “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. The Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29)

Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in (Mark 7:13): "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do" - Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in (Proverbs 30:5-6): "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar" - God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

The Lord’s strong, clear declaration in (Isaiah 8:20) is: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" - The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

Psalm 36:9 explains: "For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light" - God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. Apostle Paul said the same thing, "These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" - It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (John 3:18-21, 2 Corinthians 4:3-7).

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, (2 Peter 1:20-21): "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" - Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.


Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth - "it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth" (1 John 5:6)

The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written: "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor 4:6)

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7) - The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

John 17:17 - “Thy word is truth.”

Psalm 119:160 - “Thy word is true from the beginning.”

Titus 1:2 - “God who cannot lie.”


The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?

The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Acts 17:11 says, "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's Word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim 3:16). Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture effectively leaves the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?

If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in Sacred Tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.

Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.

Nevertheless, the Catholic will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?


To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.

One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition, as is stated in Hebrew 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.

CONCLUSION

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.

Very nice. Personally, I take no issue with scripture being the standard in which all things should and must be measured. Unfortunately, many who embrace "Sola Scriptura" have also created their own traditions to go with it. A great example of this is the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the scriptures, that is if the scripture is taken at face value in it's intended context, does scripture say that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased. Yet you have many who dismiss large portions of scripture as no longer relevant for today because they have embraced their own "extra biblical" (non-biblical) traditions to suit their own religious agendas.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Very nice. Personally, I take no issue with scripture being the standard in which all things should and must be measured. Unfortunately, many who embrace "Sola Scriptura" have also created their own traditions to go with it. A great example of this is the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the scriptures, that is if the scripture is taken at face value in it's intended context, does scripture say that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased. Yet you have many who dismiss large portions of scripture as no longer relevant for today because they have embraced their own "extra biblical" (non-biblical) traditions to suit their own religious agendas.

I agree. But I also might add this is the very reason "Sola Scriptura" must be maintained. We would not know of these errors if we did not study scripture ourselves to test to see if what they say comes from God or not. Not to mention. who could we believe if scripture was not our ultimate guide in all things of God.

It is true. many people have distorted scripture and made false doctrines. But if it were not for scripture. those of us seeking truth would not know who to believe.

 

[Scotth1960]

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160)

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16)

The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21)

When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)

The Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example (Psalm 119:142), “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. The Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29)

Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in (Mark 7:13): "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do" - Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in (Proverbs 30:5-6): "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar" - God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

The Lord’s strong, clear declaration in (Isaiah 8:20) is: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" - The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

Psalm 36:9 explains: "For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light" - God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. Apostle Paul said the same thing, "These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" - It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (John 3:18-21, 2 Corinthians 4:3-7).

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, (2 Peter 1:20-21): "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" - Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.


Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth - "it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth" (1 John 5:6)

The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written: "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor 4:6)

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7) - The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

John 17:17 - “Thy word is truth.”

Psalm 119:160 - “Thy word is true from the beginning.”

Titus 1:2 - “God who cannot lie.”


The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?

The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Acts 17:11 says, "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's Word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true.

Friend, For sola Scriptura to be true, it depends on who you believe. In other words, you say sola Scriptura is true because you, as a Protestant, say that it is true. You hand down your tradition, and expect us to believe it, even though you cannot produce one Scripture in the Bible that says, "By the Bible alone". You add to the Bible your non-biblical tradition of "by the Bible alone". For it to be true, it would have had to be taught in the early Church, by all of the Church Fathers.
You teach not "Scripture alone", but Scripture plus traditions that did not exist until John Wycliffe and Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. You can't show the Wycliffe and Luther and Calvin and Wesley taught things that were taught by all of the early Church. The Reformation "solas" are innovations. Of course, we are saved by God's grace, but we don't have to have it as a slogan "sola gratia".
In Erie Scott Harrington

Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim 3:16). Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture effectively leaves the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?

If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible?

Friend, Does the Bible outlaw and forbid oral, spoken traditions? Sacred Tradition is not independent of the Word of God. Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition come from the same Source: The Holy Spirit. Both are inspired of God. Here is what the Bible says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV).
Some traditions come by word only, and are not written down in the Scriptures (2 Thess. 2:15).
Some men must guide us to show us what the Scriptures mean:
"So Philip ran to him [the Ethiopian eunuch], and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:30-31 NKJV).
God bless you. In Erie Scott R. Harrington






w do we know what is and is not true in Sacred Tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.

Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.

Nevertheless, the Catholic will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?


To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.

One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition, as is stated in Hebrew 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.

CONCLUSION

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
Since the Bible does not approve of the Protestant Reformation traditions of Luther and Calvin of no free will, original sin,
total depravity, limited atonement, double predestination, justification by faith alone, sola Scriptura, 2 sacraments only, burning heretics at the stake, Protestantism, along with its man-made traditions, must be rejected as unbiblical. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[eternally-gratefull]

CONCLUSION[/U]

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
Since the Bible does not approve of the Protestant Reformation traditions of Luther and Calvin of no free will, original sin,
total depravity, limited atonement, double predestination, justification by faith alone, sola Scriptura, 2 sacraments only, burning heretics at the stake, Protestantism, along with its man-made traditions, must be rejected as unbiblical. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

in the same way. Since scripture does not approve of the doctrine of the virginity of mary, Mary being the queen of Heaven. The Eucharistic mass, Penance as a means of forgiveness of personal sin, purgatory etc etc. Then Catholicism and orthodoxy must be rejected as unbiblical.

it goes both ways scott. You can't have it one way!

 

[zone]

Very nice. Personally, I take no issue with scripture being the standard in which all things should and must be measured..

well it most assuredly is, so i reckon its good we don't take issue with it.

what other standard is there?
subjectivity? tradition?

Unfortunately, many who embrace "Sola Scriptura" have also created their own traditions to go with it. A great example of this is the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the scriptures, that is if the scripture is taken at face value in it's intended context, does scripture say that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased. Yet you have many who dismiss large portions of scripture as no longer relevant for today because they have embraced their own "extra biblical" (non-biblical) traditions to suit their own religious agendas.

here's the ironic part.
taking scriptures at face value and in historical and exegetical context makes continuation of the offices and gifts given for the founation of the church impossible.

what we have instead today is experientialism based on the teachings of men, which are based on a lack of understanding of the acutal historical foundation of the church and what the gifts were.

if we have to reconcile our subjective spiritual experiences (which are often very real however unbiblical), we end up with this somewhat compromisingly low view of the scriptures.

take no issue with scripture being the standard in which all things should and must be measured..

the modern Hyper-Pentecostal/Charismatic experience raison d'être must be carried alongside and added to Sola Scriptura rather than being examined in the light of the Historical Pentecost and foundation of the church and understood as not related in any way to what happened and to what end - the delivering to us of "that which is perfect" , or complete:

the entire body of truths, doctrines and will of God as revealed to man in the New Testament canon, all things sufficient for contending for the faith, delivered one for all to the saints.

 

[zone]

the "tradition" of 'contiuationism' by very definition overthrows the purposeful, miraculous means and methods God ordained for the laying of the foundation of the church: the establishment of a body of texts we now have as the fully revealed and completely sufficient scriptures.

through this means alone today, under the quickening power of the Holy Spirit are men brought to repentence and faith, and provided all instruction for the christian life.

the alarm and distress expressed by the continuationist camp fails to recognize the equally valid distress coming from the cessationist camp (albeit for the opposite reason).

 

[zone]

What is sola scriptura?

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

Recommended Resource: Scripture Alone by James White.

This page is also available in: Español, Português, Deutsch, Nederlands, Italiano, Polski, Hrvatski, Français

http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

 

[dscherck]

I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).


II. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

III. Other Passages used to Support "Sola Scriptura"

John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura.

John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse "Scripture cannot be broken" to somehow prove sola Scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.

John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. Indeed, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

Rev. 1:11,19 - Non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus' commands to John to write as support for the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus commands John to write because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus' usual command). Further, such a commandment would be limited to the book that John wrote, the Book of Revelation, and would have nothing to do with the other Scriptures.

Rev. 22:18-19 - some Protestants argue against Catholic tradition by citing this verse, "don't add to the prophecies in this book." But this commandment only refers to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible which came 300 years later.

Deut 4:2; 12:32 - moreover, God commands the same thing here but this did not preclude Christians from accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.

 

[dscherck]

I. The Word of God is Transferred Orally

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

II. Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.

1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.


III. Examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[zone]

hi DS.
i love it that we can try to use Sola Scriptura to claim Scripture does not say Sola Scriptura and therefore affirm Sola Scriptura.
thank you
love zone.

 

[SantoSubito]

As always, Zone I find your position much more agreeable than the usual Evangelical position. I don't think some people are aware that they are not practicing the Sola Scriptura that the protestant reformation wanted, but the new fangled "solo scriptura" that the protestant reformers despised.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

As always, Zone I find your position much more agreeable than the usual Evangelical position. I don't think some people are aware that they are not practicing the Sola Scriptura that the protestant reformation wanted, but the new fangled "solo scriptura" that the protestant reformers despised.

maybe because unlike many. We do not follow the reformers. or anyone in the past. We can study them, and see how and why they thought they did. We can study all things (even what people say today). Yet it is our avid study of Scripture which is where we get our opinions. And we test all things, all spirits and all doctrine (words of men) to make sure what they say lines up with what Gods word says. Which we all should do.

I think if we look at history and tradition. we will find that many of the churches of the past had many or some things they Got right. i think you will see many of them got alot, or some stuff wrong. Calvin, Luther, Augustine (all leaders and founders of some of these historic churches still alive today) got some things right. and we can learn from these things. But unfortunately they also got many things wrong. And if one blindly follows any of them, they will get the good which they taught, but have the bad that comes with it. This is why we should not blindly follow anyone. and should trust nothing other than the one thing we know is trustworthy. That is the word God gave us.

 

[Abiding]

See why I just bring the beverages and snacks? By the time i read these pieces..too tired to write
plus i could never type that much for free

 

[superdave5221]

maybe because unlike many. We do not follow the reformers. or anyone in the past. We can study them, and see how and why they thought they did. We can study all things (even what people say today). Yet it is our avid study of Scripture which is where we get our opinions. And we test all things, all spirits and all doctrine (words of men) to make sure what they say lines up with what Gods word says. Which we all should do.

I think if we look at history and tradition. we will find that many of the churches of the past had many or some things they Got right. i think you will see many of them got alot, or some stuff wrong. Calvin, Luther, Augustine (all leaders and founders of some of these historic churches still alive today) got some things right. and we can learn from these things. But unfortunately they also got many things wrong. And if one blindly follows any of them, they will get the good which they taught, but have the bad that comes with it. This is why we should not blindly follow anyone. and should trust nothing other than the one thing we know is trustworthy. That is the word God gave us.

You're absolutely right EG. Good post!

We need to depend on God's word, and not man's if we are to know the will of God.

A good example is the need for water baptism. Until 1523 A.D., it was believed by All church fathers that water baptism was necessary for salvation. Between 1523 and 1525, one man, Huldreich Zwingli, who decided that all of the doctors up to that point, including Luther, were wrong, and in contradiction to Ephesians 4:5 he decided that there were two baptisms, one of the spirit, and one of water. He decided that water baptism was only an outward showing of one's belonging to God, much as the circumcism of the O.T.

Now, agreeing that it is the baptism of the Spirit that saves, the bible is clear that this occurs during the water baptism. There is one baptism, as Ephesians 4:5 declares. John Calvin, although bitterly opposed to Zwingli in some other matters of doctrine, agreed, as it fit well with his deterministic thinking.

It is interesting, that Augustine, upon whom much of Calvin's thinking is based, agreed with the need of water baptism for salvation. In response to those who declared this as a "works" based theology, Augustine said "Yes, but it is God's work, not man's". Luther also agreed that water baptism was necessary.

As a result of one man's interpretation, almost all protestant churches, (not the Lutherans), changed their belief in the need for salvation.

One must ask, is this a doctrine of God, or of man (Zwingli)?

 

[ezekialswheel]

Very nice. Personally, I take no issue with scripture being the standard in which all things should and must be measured. Unfortunately, many who embrace "Sola Scriptura" have also created their own traditions to go with it. A great example of this is the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the scriptures, that is if the scripture is taken at face value in it's intended context, does scripture say that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased. Yet you have many who dismiss large portions of scripture as no longer relevant for today because they have embraced their own "extra biblical" (non-biblical) traditions to suit their own religious agendas.

Yes, but many claim sola scriptora, but its not true at all, we see this in almost every denomination. Its always the scripture PLUS or the scripture as we interpret it. Like you say there are many examples of this but not sure about the example you sight. Very inspecific. My mind immediately says, "this guy is a penticostal", I could be wrong. But this is obviously a penticostal belief. Also does this gifts of the spirit that you are talking about have anything to do with the gifts Jesus gave when He sent out his apostles, because its my understanding those were a "temporary dispensation", Ive never made a personal study of the subject.
Secondly like I said b4 its furthermore inspecific because Im assuming again you have a specific "gift" in mind? Its pretty tempting to go to this subject.TOUNGUES. Care to discuss it? Solus Scriptoris right? Ive been a Christian for 20 years. Ive never seen anybody speak a "foriegn language" in church before let alone it be interpreted as per biblical instruction.
I have seen on a hundred occasions seen the oh, so obvious "imitation" of this. Its sad and not biblical. Is this what you are refering to friend when you say that the gifts of the spirit have not ceased?
This doctrine is taught in many churches today so much so as to be mainstream today, however as its practiced I cant see it being biblical at all, so where is "solo scriptoris" in all this? See what I mean? These people also will quote scripture on top of scripture to try to validate what they are doing as being scriptural but after 20 years I still dont see it in scripture.
Im not saying "toungues" has ceased. Im saying Ive never seen it. Ever. Not according to scripture anyway. Like I said Ive seen "imitations", and that scary because for everything God has, Satan has an imitation. This is fact and its biblicalThe Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. Solo Scriptoris.
What say you? Oh, and one scripture the person didnt list in the topic is this,
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. John 6:63 A proper understanding of this scripture might help. Another scripture that is related is, "for you have magnified your word above all your name" Psalm 138:2
The WORD is the final authority, NOT any spirit. There are many spirits. Paul says TEST the spirits YES?
SO....some spirit comes in and the BABBLING begins. Then they want to say its the Holy Spirit! However according to scripture this is WRONG.
Wether the gifts of the sprit have ceased I know not. What I do know is this speaking in toungues thing is no gift of the Holy Spirit. It MAY be a gift of the spirit, buts not God. Follow? A doctrine that is NOT a doctrine maybe? idk
Now a disclaimer here so as not to make myself into an authority. Im a man. I make mistakes. However as best I can tell from SOLO SCRIPTORIS what I have said is EXACTLY true.
So...the point? The point is ONE: This is not some mistake Catholics make as if the mainstream protestants dont. Thats a lie. POINT two is: Can anybody show me in scripture where its ok to babble in church like some kind of I dont know what? "Let everything be done decently and in order" hmm?
P.S. I got a list a mile long of traditions of mainstream protestantism teachings and practices that they claim Solo Scriptoris, yet we find it nowhere in scripture. I believe there is a serious malfunction here somewhere.
I spose that if anyone has ears to hear let em hear. Thats all. ty, God bless.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You're absolutely right EG. Good post!

We need to depend on God's word, and not man's if we are to know the will of God.

A good example is the need for water baptism. Until 1523 A.D., it was believed by All church fathers that water baptism was necessary for salvation. Between 1523 and 1525, one man, Huldreich Zwingli, who decided that all of the doctors up to that point, including Luther, were wrong, and in contradiction to Ephesians 4:5 he decided that there were two baptisms, one of the spirit, and one of water. He decided that water baptism was only an outward showing of one's belonging to God, much as the circumcism of the O.T.

Now, agreeing that it is the baptism of the Spirit that saves, the bible is clear that this occurs during the water baptism. There is one baptism, as Ephesians 4:5 declares. John Calvin, although bitterly opposed to Zwingli in some other matters of doctrine, agreed, as it fit well with his deterministic thinking.

It is interesting, that Augustine, upon whom much of Calvin's thinking is based, agreed with the need of water baptism for salvation. In response to those who declared this as a "works" based theology, Augustine said "Yes, but it is God's work, not man's". Luther also agreed that water baptism was necessary.

As a result of one man's interpretation, almost all protestant churches, (not the Lutherans), changed their belief in the need for salvation.

One must ask, is this a doctrine of God, or of man (Zwingli)?

well water baptism is for another thread. feel free to open it if you wish. I will just say I think we disagree on this issue. I think your point about not following people is perfectly valid though. and shows why we should not follow men. But scripture alone, and what it teaches us. God will hold us accountable personally for how we interpreted his word. Not for how some man taught us and who we followed.

 

[superdave5221]

well water baptism is for another thread. feel free to open it if you wish. I will just say I think we disagree on this issue. I think your point about not following people is perfectly valid though. and shows why we should not follow men. But scripture alone, and what it teaches us. God will hold us accountable personally for how we interpreted his word. Not for how some man taught us and who we followed.

Fair enough EG. No, I have no desire to open up another thread, as this issue has been debated to the nth degree already. I am aware that to preach against tradition, is like climbing Mt. Everest in the winter. Jesus knew this when he went against the traditions of his time with little success in changing the minds of the Jewish leaders.

I just used it as an example to point out the problems that might occur when depending on someone else to interpret the bible for us.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I believe most groups that believe strongly in tradition have the problem of changing over time. If you study you will find out that Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witness and other groups that are not Sola Scripture have traditions that change over time. Catholics are not the same as the Catholics of hundreds of years ago. If we believe someone has the traditions of the New Testament Church we must realize that these traditions would have to be unchanged from 2,000 years ago. Mostly Catholics are following Popes who give traditions to the people. Because the traditions change over time we can see that they are not keeping the New Testament Traditions. These groups such as Jehovah's Witness who believe their prophets, have teachings that are not in the Scripture and have no proof they are traditions of God. They are willing to change these traditions to fit the current time and to cover up past mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the traditions of the New Testament Church without the Biblel.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I believe most groups that believe strongly in tradition have the problem of changing over time. If you study you will find out that Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witness and other groups that are not Sola Scripture have traditions that change over time. Catholics are not the same as the Catholics of hundreds of years ago. If we believe someone has the traditions of the New Testament Church we must realize that these traditions would have to be unchanged from 2,000 years ago. Mostly Catholics are following Popes who give traditions to the people. Because the traditions change over time we can see that they are not keeping the New Testament Traditions. These groups such as Jehovah's Witness who believe their prophets, have teachings that are not in the Scripture and have no proof they are traditions of God. They are willing to change these traditions to fit the current time and to cover up past mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the traditions of the New Testament Church without the Biblel.

well said!