Sola Scripture -V- Traditions
- Thread starter Katy-follower
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Maybe you are not aware of this but you are assuming social, educational, economical and technological conditions that have not existed for the vast majority of the History of Christianity. Braille, audio bibles and all that were not available to medieval peasants. They were entirely dependent upon the Church.
Of course I can. But the point is that Sola Scriptura is not an option for this person or any other in the same boat because they are entirely reliant upon someone else to accurately teach them the bible.
Yes, they did and still do. The entire world was reliant upon the Catholic church to deliver the Bible for them. Were they not God's chosen vessel to teach the world the Bible during these time? I have never heard of any other group of people carrying on the task during this time.
So what happened? Did God say, "Hey we have a printing press and universal literacy now. I guess I don't have to rely on the Catholics any more. Wish I had thought of that myself 1500 ago. To bad I didn't."
Of course I can. But the point is that Sola Scriptura is not an option for this person or any other in the same boat because they are entirely reliant upon someone else to accurately teach them the bible.
Yes, they did and still do. The entire world was reliant upon the Catholic church to deliver the Bible for them. Were they not God's chosen vessel to teach the world the Bible during these time? I have never heard of any other group of people carrying on the task during this time.
So what happened? Did God say, "Hey we have a printing press and universal literacy now. I guess I don't have to rely on the Catholics any more. Wish I had thought of that myself 1500 ago. To bad I didn't."
S
Yeah it is. You start with a presupposition, and inject that into scripture. Everyone does it.
EDIT:Even thought we claim we don't, everyone reads themselves into the bible a little bit. That's why God always likes what the read likes, and hates what hte reader hates
EDIT:Even thought we claim we don't, everyone reads themselves into the bible a little bit. That's why God always likes what the read likes, and hates what hte reader hates
It is impossible to know what "everyone" does. There are too many people on earth to know what everyone does in every case. The most we can say is, "I do .... such and such", or a "few people I know.... do ... such and such." It is an unproven presupposition that "everyone" starts with presuppositions, and brings these to his/her interpretation of the Bible. It is not necessarily so! I could be so, but it isn't proven. Perhaps at least one person is objective, fair, and right-minded in all or most of his/her interpretations of the Bible.
J
Irrelavent point is interesting, but remains irrelavent. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that beliefs about God should come from the bible, atleast as a basis. Are you saying we shouldn't use scripture because Africans may not be able to read it? We'll just tell each other what God said, without any Objective source. Good policy, good policy. Then I can use my feif to pay my way out of Purgatory, and pay the preist to forgive my sins. (not like thats never happened before )
)
J
What you are talking about is Argumentum Ad Populum.
I'm not appealing to popular assent. I'm stating that people have presuppositions when it comes to scripture. You come to the table as an EO. I come to the table as a rainbow of doctrines. SantoSubito comes to the table as a Roman Catholic.
To say that no one has presuppositions, is a presupposition.
Except for that it's entirely relevant. The person I describe is the rule, not the exception. The wealth and technological advances that are occurring in our time has no historical precedence. For the vast majority of the people for the vast majority of the history of the world, life has been a life or death struggle for survival. Any theory or explanation about about how God communicates to us has to account for that.
No, not quite. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. This means that we are to base our beliefs on God and our religious practice soley on scripture, or on scripture alone. Martin Luther's idea was that the plan of salvation, as laid out in the scriptures is easy and plain to understand and anyone that read the scriptures would come to the same ideas that he did about how to be saved and live as a Christian. Even in his own lifetime he saw this idea proven false as the protestants began dividing up over scriptural disagreements almost immediately after the reformation began.
Sola Scriptura is self refuting though because obviously, the people wrote the Bible to begin with didn't get their ideas about God from scripture because there was no scripture to read from. The oral tradition came first and was later written down. If the ones that wrote the Bible had believed in Sola Scriptura (I'm aware of how thoroughly absurd that is. Are you?) then the Bible would have never been written.
I NEVER once stated not using scripture. By arguing against "Scripture only," I am not arguing for "scripture not at all." I believe in a Triune word of God. That is I believe in Scripture plus sacred tradition plus church leadership.
Also, I'm honest. The average protestant did not read the entire Bible and then decide on their doctrine but instead went along with what there Church or parents taught. So most protestants, who claim to practice only sola scriptura are in actually relying on both scriptura and some kind of church leadership. Most protestant churches that have been around for more than one generation have also developed their own traditions and so most protestants observe that as well.
So the real difference between protestants and Catholics is that Catholics can trace the start of their Church leadership and sacred traditions to Jesus himself while protestants have church leadership ad tradition that is traced to mortal, fallible man.
No, not quite. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. This means that we are to base our beliefs on God and our religious practice soley on scripture, or on scripture alone. Martin Luther's idea was that the plan of salvation, as laid out in the scriptures is easy and plain to understand and anyone that read the scriptures would come to the same ideas that he did about how to be saved and live as a Christian. Even in his own lifetime he saw this idea proven false as the protestants began dividing up over scriptural disagreements almost immediately after the reformation began.
Sola Scriptura is self refuting though because obviously, the people wrote the Bible to begin with didn't get their ideas about God from scripture because there was no scripture to read from. The oral tradition came first and was later written down. If the ones that wrote the Bible had believed in Sola Scriptura (I'm aware of how thoroughly absurd that is. Are you?) then the Bible would have never been written.
Are you saying we shouldn't use scripture because Africans may not be able to read it? We'll just tell each other what God said, without any Objective source. Good policy, good policy. Then I can use my feif to pay my way out of Purgatory, and pay the preist to forgive my sins. (not like thats never happened before )
)
Also, I'm honest. The average protestant did not read the entire Bible and then decide on their doctrine but instead went along with what there Church or parents taught. So most protestants, who claim to practice only sola scriptura are in actually relying on both scriptura and some kind of church leadership. Most protestant churches that have been around for more than one generation have also developed their own traditions and so most protestants observe that as well.
So the real difference between protestants and Catholics is that Catholics can trace the start of their Church leadership and sacred traditions to Jesus himself while protestants have church leadership ad tradition that is traced to mortal, fallible man.
I do not see why I need anything but what is written in the Bible,for the Bible says that it is sufficient for my salvation,in which the Bible says that scripture can make you wise unto salvation,so why do I need any traditions seeing scripture alone can make me wise unto salvation,and what more do I need,for to have salvation is to be right with God.
Some people say that there is tradition we need outside of scripture,that is well and good,but I find that their traditions in the majority go against the teachings of scripture,so what do you do about that.
Their traditions cannot have authority like scriptures,saying it is of God but not in scripture,if it contradicts scripture.
Some people say that there is tradition we need outside of scripture,that is well and good,but I find that their traditions in the majority go against the teachings of scripture,so what do you do about that.
Their traditions cannot have authority like scriptures,saying it is of God but not in scripture,if it contradicts scripture.
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.
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.
E
No it would not. Because all we would have left is a bunch of men with their own saying all saying they speak from God. and would have no way to prove who was right and who was wrong (that is if any of them spoke for God. Sorry. My God did not leave me or any of his people with this major problem.
Wow. What did they do in the OT times? Did not people go to the listen to the word. Don't you think God would make a way for them to get the word?
Wow. In Peters time every church he wrote to had a copy of scripture. for all to see. Everyone he spoke to (which were jews everywhere) had available copes of pauls writings. And peter called it scripture.. Timothy was able to read scripture as a child. Paul made it clear his study of scripture gave him enough knowledge on how to be saved. The jews were not lacking. Even the half jews in northern Israel knew scripture. Where do you get that just because not everyone had a personaly bible. everyone could not have had access to one, or had one read? Again. Scripture does not support your theory.
You doubt God has the ability to get his word to everyone? Sorry I am not buying that 1500 year argument. If every church had copies of pauls letters, and understood them to be scripture. where did all these bibles go? Did Rome destroy them so they could enforce their own version of Christianity? (wink)
Wow. What did they do in the OT times? Did not people go to the listen to the word. Don't you think God would make a way for them to get the word?
Wow. In Peters time every church he wrote to had a copy of scripture. for all to see. Everyone he spoke to (which were jews everywhere) had available copes of pauls writings. And peter called it scripture.. Timothy was able to read scripture as a child. Paul made it clear his study of scripture gave him enough knowledge on how to be saved. The jews were not lacking. Even the half jews in northern Israel knew scripture. Where do you get that just because not everyone had a personaly bible. everyone could not have had access to one, or had one read? Again. Scripture does not support your theory.
You doubt God has the ability to get his word to everyone? Sorry I am not buying that 1500 year argument. If every church had copies of pauls letters, and understood them to be scripture. where did all these bibles go? Did Rome destroy them so they could enforce their own version of Christianity? (wink)
You are right. They would be. Not by me, mind you. I have read a lot of writings of the Early Church fathes and they were most definitely not Sola Scripturists. And they were universalists (meaning they believe in the authority of the church and they believed in ONE church.)
Its the sola scriptura crowd that will ignore these quotes. There is a saying (paraphrased) that to be deep into history is to cease to be a protestant.
Oh!! I see what you are saying. We're on the same side.
Its the sola scriptura crowd that will ignore these quotes. There is a saying (paraphrased) that to be deep into history is to cease to be a protestant.
SO, seeing as people insist (unscripturally mind you) that only Scripture must be used in debate, I will use Scripture to show them the errors of their ways and help them come closer to the fullness of the Truth.
E
Can you prove these early writings were believed by the apostles who wrote scripture? Can you prove they were believed by everyone in the church? No.
So why would we take them as Gospel truth? They are words of men. Which can not even be proven. just taken for face value. Sorry if I do not follow men. God told me not to follow men. I suggest you listen to God.
S
Except for as a Protestant, that is EXACTLY what you have, a bunch of different people all claiming to speak for God and none of them agreeing. Who's right? The Church of Christ or the Baptists? Or maybe its the Evangelicals or the Charismatics? I don't know if its true or not but I recently heard that currently 5 new protestant denominations come into being every year.
And the Bible hasn't helped at all because no one can agree on what it means.
But I don't blame this on God. I blame this on those that left the body of Christ.
Illiteracy wasn't much of a problem for the Old Testament people because the Jews have consistently maintained universal literacy and so they could all read the scriptures themselves. But still, the vast majority of them never practiced Sola Scriptura (the Jewish sects that did have long since died out and were always in a very slim minority). Instead they believed that the Torah was given in two parts, the written Torah and the Oral Torah. And so to use the Old Testament as an example is kind of shooting your own argument in the foot.
You are only looking at the Jews here. And you are right. The Jews have always maintained universal literacy, more so than any other culture or civilization to my knowledge.
What you are not looking at is the span of time between the fall of Jerusalem and the invention of the printing press. Or the time between the fall of the Roman empire to the the invention of the printing press. When Paul turned to the gentiles, who on average were not nearly as educated as the Jews, the literacy level of your average Christian dropped considerably.
And then in the mid 4th century, Christianity was no longer illegal in the Roman empire, which opened the door for mass conversion.
By as early as 400 AD, the vast majority of Christians were illiterate commoners. And this situation would remain unchanged for the next thousand years.
Maybe we are talking past each other. I have no idea what makes you think I am suggesting any such thing. I believe in Scripture and I believe in God. I also believe in Church authority and sacred tradition. I am not saying God doesn't have the ability or that I don't trust to get his word to everyone. i"m not saying that at all. I'm saying that his word is not confined to the written word but that there is an oral and traditional element as well.
In fact I AM saying that I trust God so much that not only do I trust God to preserve his written word, I also trust God to preserve his oral tradition and His Church. Maybe it is you, and not I, that is having the trust in God issues.
It's not that you aren't buying it. More accurately you are just ignoring it. (I am assuming that you have enough historical knowledge to know that most people in Europe from the end of the Roman Empire to the invention of the printing press were illiterate.)
I don't see any evidence to suppose that every church had a copy of Paul's letters before the bible was canonized.
As for Rome inventing and enforcing their own version of Christianity, that is extremely doubtful for a couple of reasons. If you have ever studied anything about Roman paganism and Judaism, you'd know that Roman Catholicism has a lot more in common with Judaism than any pagan practice. To give you an idea, many Jews view the RCC as being pretend Judaism while some Christians accuse Rome of actually being Judaism masquerading as Christianity. In other words, not much changed in the transition from Judaism to Christianity.
Also, since Rome is the ONLY church for about 1100 years (when it split), to suggest that Rome hijacked Christianity and reinvented its own version of it is to suggest that Jesus' true Church was defeated and didn't resurface for a thousand years.
And the Bible hasn't helped at all because no one can agree on what it means.
But I don't blame this on God. I blame this on those that left the body of Christ.
Illiteracy wasn't much of a problem for the Old Testament people because the Jews have consistently maintained universal literacy and so they could all read the scriptures themselves. But still, the vast majority of them never practiced Sola Scriptura (the Jewish sects that did have long since died out and were always in a very slim minority). Instead they believed that the Torah was given in two parts, the written Torah and the Oral Torah. And so to use the Old Testament as an example is kind of shooting your own argument in the foot.
You are only looking at the Jews here. And you are right. The Jews have always maintained universal literacy, more so than any other culture or civilization to my knowledge.
What you are not looking at is the span of time between the fall of Jerusalem and the invention of the printing press. Or the time between the fall of the Roman empire to the the invention of the printing press. When Paul turned to the gentiles, who on average were not nearly as educated as the Jews, the literacy level of your average Christian dropped considerably.
And then in the mid 4th century, Christianity was no longer illegal in the Roman empire, which opened the door for mass conversion.
By as early as 400 AD, the vast majority of Christians were illiterate commoners. And this situation would remain unchanged for the next thousand years.
Maybe we are talking past each other. I have no idea what makes you think I am suggesting any such thing. I believe in Scripture and I believe in God. I also believe in Church authority and sacred tradition. I am not saying God doesn't have the ability or that I don't trust to get his word to everyone. i"m not saying that at all. I'm saying that his word is not confined to the written word but that there is an oral and traditional element as well.
In fact I AM saying that I trust God so much that not only do I trust God to preserve his written word, I also trust God to preserve his oral tradition and His Church. Maybe it is you, and not I, that is having the trust in God issues.
It's not that you aren't buying it. More accurately you are just ignoring it. (I am assuming that you have enough historical knowledge to know that most people in Europe from the end of the Roman Empire to the invention of the printing press were illiterate.)
I don't see any evidence to suppose that every church had a copy of Paul's letters before the bible was canonized.
As for Rome inventing and enforcing their own version of Christianity, that is extremely doubtful for a couple of reasons. If you have ever studied anything about Roman paganism and Judaism, you'd know that Roman Catholicism has a lot more in common with Judaism than any pagan practice. To give you an idea, many Jews view the RCC as being pretend Judaism while some Christians accuse Rome of actually being Judaism masquerading as Christianity. In other words, not much changed in the transition from Judaism to Christianity.
Also, since Rome is the ONLY church for about 1100 years (when it split), to suggest that Rome hijacked Christianity and reinvented its own version of it is to suggest that Jesus' true Church was defeated and didn't resurface for a thousand years.
Last edited:
S
Like has been said before, from the fall of the Roman Empire until the invention of the printing press the common man could not read. The only churches lucky enough to have a copy of the scriptures were usually Cathedrals or Basilicas, and even then they were in Latin, because the few people that could read were trained to read Latin and not their native tongue (most of which didn't even have a writing system at that time).
So while some Churches had copies of the Scriptures (with the Deuterocanon mind you) Sola Scriptura as you understand it was largely impossible, and even when it was somewhat possible (forming of the canon-the fall of the Roman Empire) we have no indications of it being used.
So while some Churches had copies of the Scriptures (with the Deuterocanon mind you) Sola Scriptura as you understand it was largely impossible, and even when it was somewhat possible (forming of the canon-the fall of the Roman Empire) we have no indications of it being used.
E
I think I got mad before so appologies to anyone who might be offeneded.
However in a nutshell Im going to say I think" solo scriptoris" is a fallacy as far as protstantism is concerned. Absolutely no denomination that I know of actually pratices this way. There are couple who are very close and they are ALL Sabbath keeping churches, Sorry but thats just a fact. In order to be solo scriptoris you also need to keep the law as best as you can (with the help of God) and how many modern day Christian churches do that , that you know of? 10 percent? I think that would be stretching it. ty
However in a nutshell Im going to say I think" solo scriptoris" is a fallacy as far as protstantism is concerned. Absolutely no denomination that I know of actually pratices this way. There are couple who are very close and they are ALL Sabbath keeping churches, Sorry but thats just a fact. In order to be solo scriptoris you also need to keep the law as best as you can (with the help of God) and how many modern day Christian churches do that , that you know of? 10 percent? I think that would be stretching it. ty
H
AThe tradtitions Jesus taught against were traditoins
1) like making extra money to be Corban rather than helping relatives
2) Doing nothing good or bad on the Sabbath
3) washing outwardly excessively to remain pure but remaining indecent inside
B) Even Jesus had to teach by exegesis which is what Catholics do very very well.
C) The Eunich Phillip taught was taught from the living tradtion of Jesus not from pre-existing scriptures. We cannot argue with someone who denies the scriptures without arguing our own living relationship with God. That itself is not strictly just having a relationship within scriopture. God does not only open scriptures but builds a living faith.
The same with the Eunuch anf Philllip who taught from the living tradtion.
Now you will say that that is all taken as written. But that ignores the instruction to listen to living tradtion and its scriptures and then to check those scriptures.
D) Many texts which prove purgatory and penances were removed from the bible by protestants because they did not agree with them. Th protestants were then acting within a tradtion (I will grant a living one, but no more alive than the ancient church of the Catholics)
1) like making extra money to be Corban rather than helping relatives
2) Doing nothing good or bad on the Sabbath
3) washing outwardly excessively to remain pure but remaining indecent inside
B) Even Jesus had to teach by exegesis which is what Catholics do very very well.
C) The Eunich Phillip taught was taught from the living tradtion of Jesus not from pre-existing scriptures. We cannot argue with someone who denies the scriptures without arguing our own living relationship with God. That itself is not strictly just having a relationship within scriopture. God does not only open scriptures but builds a living faith.
The same with the Eunuch anf Philllip who taught from the living tradtion.
Now you will say that that is all taken as written. But that ignores the instruction to listen to living tradtion and its scriptures and then to check those scriptures.
D) Many texts which prove purgatory and penances were removed from the bible by protestants because they did not agree with them. Th protestants were then acting within a tradtion (I will grant a living one, but no more alive than the ancient church of the Catholics)