Hi folks, I'm new here. I posted this topic in another forum about a week ago, but it has gotten no response, so I decided to post it here as well. I hope I'm not violating any rules.
Why do so many Christians (Catholics are the only exception, I think) believe in the bible alone? If God intended us to belive in the bible alone, wouldn't that be in the bible? And it isn't. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the bible isn't God's word (it is!). I'm simply saying that we shouldn't belive in the bible ALONE, but Sacred Tradition as well. And the bible says so. Look at these passages (I am using the New American Bible):
1 Cor. 11:2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. [emphasis added]
2 Thes. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. [emphasis added]
There it is, as plain as anything. St. Paul is praising the Corinthians and Thessalonians because they held fast to the traditions. How can any bible-believing Christian honestly say that we should not believe in Sacred Tradition? It just baffles me.
I hope I haven't seemed rude or offensive, that was not my intention. I'm just confused that so many good, truth-seeking people could be so misled. I look forward to hear what you have to say about this.
BTW -- I am Catholic, in case you want to know.
Max
Tradition
Moderator: Moderators
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #2
What would those traditions be? If you are inferring that they are the traditions of the Catholic church, I would argue that those traditions are likely far from the traditions of Paul, who was a Jew.
Post #3
St. Paul was a Jewish convert to Catholicism. And he was 100% Catholic at the time he wrote to the Thessalonians and Corinthians. You don't think Paul was going all over the world spreading Judaism, do you? No, he was spreading Catholicism. If St. Paul was not talking about the traditions of the Church, then what was he talking about?
Also, I have more reasons showing that Sola Scriptura is false:
Reason #1
The Bible was not completed until sometime around the the year 100. That leaves roughly 60-70 years between the Ascension of Christ and the completion of the Bible. So according to Sola Scriptura, all the early Christians were spiritually lost, since they didn't have the "sole word of God." This idea is absurd. Christ said (Matt. 28:20) "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." [emphasis added] Furthermore, the New Testament was not even compiled until 367, and not made official until 393. Christ did not say, "I'm going now, but I'll be back when the Bible's done."
Reason #2
What would any Christian do, if someone asked them what books made up the Bible. Obviously, they would answer them. Genesis, Exodus etc. etc., all the way to the book of Revelation. Now, what that same Christian do if someone asked them further, "How do you know that those books make up the Bible?" This poses a big problem for the Sola Scriptura Protestant. They say they believe in scripture alone. So, it follows that somewhere in the Bible, it must say which books make up the Bible, right? Well folks, it doesn't. The Bible contains no inspired table of contents.
Do you want to know where that list of books, which all Protestants exclusively base their faith on, came from? It came straight out of the Roman Catholic Church. It was made official at the Synod of Hippo in 393. Nobody, looking only at Scripture alone, could tell anyone which books are in the Bible.
Reason #3
Jesus commands the apostles (Matt. 28:20) to teach the world "all that I have commanded you." So, according to Sola Scriptura, all that Christ commanded is in the Bible. Well guess what the Bible says about that? It says the exact opposite! Listen to what St. John has to say in John 21:25 - "There are also many other thing that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
Don't you see folks? It's as plain as anything. The man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self-refuting! How can anyone honeslty say that he believes in the Bible alone?
Max
Also, I have more reasons showing that Sola Scriptura is false:
Reason #1
The Bible was not completed until sometime around the the year 100. That leaves roughly 60-70 years between the Ascension of Christ and the completion of the Bible. So according to Sola Scriptura, all the early Christians were spiritually lost, since they didn't have the "sole word of God." This idea is absurd. Christ said (Matt. 28:20) "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." [emphasis added] Furthermore, the New Testament was not even compiled until 367, and not made official until 393. Christ did not say, "I'm going now, but I'll be back when the Bible's done."
Reason #2
What would any Christian do, if someone asked them what books made up the Bible. Obviously, they would answer them. Genesis, Exodus etc. etc., all the way to the book of Revelation. Now, what that same Christian do if someone asked them further, "How do you know that those books make up the Bible?" This poses a big problem for the Sola Scriptura Protestant. They say they believe in scripture alone. So, it follows that somewhere in the Bible, it must say which books make up the Bible, right? Well folks, it doesn't. The Bible contains no inspired table of contents.
Do you want to know where that list of books, which all Protestants exclusively base their faith on, came from? It came straight out of the Roman Catholic Church. It was made official at the Synod of Hippo in 393. Nobody, looking only at Scripture alone, could tell anyone which books are in the Bible.
Reason #3
Jesus commands the apostles (Matt. 28:20) to teach the world "all that I have commanded you." So, according to Sola Scriptura, all that Christ commanded is in the Bible. Well guess what the Bible says about that? It says the exact opposite! Listen to what St. John has to say in John 21:25 - "There are also many other thing that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
Don't you see folks? It's as plain as anything. The man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self-refuting! How can anyone honeslty say that he believes in the Bible alone?
Max
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Why Sola Scriptura?
Post #4I personally think the Sola Scriptura theory arose as a reaction to some questionable practices of the Medieval church and which the Reformers feared would in time become part of tradition. I don't know if one could say that they "overreacted" or not. But they certainly had good reasons to react. However, in my view, the Reformers went too far in the opposite direction. The Sola Scriptura doctrine probably assumes(mistakenly, in my opinion) that the Bible is clear enough and can be interpreted in one way only. This, combined with the Reformer's notion that everyone is entitled to interpret the Bible, led to the proliferation of Chistian churches and sects which often were at war with each other. In contrast, the Catrholic church retained a central authority and an official interpretation of the Scriptures, plus an emphasis on tradition and a solid philosophical foundation provided by Aquinas and others. This is not to say that Catholicism is "better" than other versions of Christianity, but the writings of the Schoolmen (Molina, Sanchez, Scotus, Ockham, etc)certainly command the respect of our intellect.
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #5
If he was converted to Catholicism, then it would follow suit that the Catholic traditions would be the "Godly" traditions that he supported. But he speaks not of new traditions in this way, but old ones.St. Paul was a Jewish convert to Catholicism. And he was 100% Catholic at the time he wrote to the Thessalonians and Corinthians. You don't think Paul was going all over the world spreading Judaism, do you? No, he was spreading Catholicism.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Paul doesn't seem to want to discredit the Jewish traditions in any way. So your converted Catholic model doesn't entirely fit. We are commanded not to add or take away from the law. Jesus echoed this in Matthew. So it seems that the addition of new traditions has become the worst type of Idolatry. Now we are not commanded into an old ritual, preaching Judaism to Gentiles, we are obliged to be lead by the indwelling spirit in so fufilling the principle taught by Moses in Deuteronomy 30.
Deu 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it [is] not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off.
Deu 30:12 It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deu 30:13 Neither [is] it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deu 30:14 But the word [is] very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
New rituals defeat the Purpose of Christ fufilling the old ones. Espicially since prayer to wooden idols has always been spoken out against, it seems ridiculus that now we would be called to do so. Especially since Mary was in no way an incarnation of God. Paul did not preach Judaism, he showed that the perfect law of God had been fufilled in Christ, not negating the Rituals, fufilling them.
-
nikolayevich
- Scholar
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Post #6
The Bible does not claim that no other writings are useful. What it does affirm is that, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16)
The important thing here is what is not said. The Bible declares its worth, but does no such thing for other writings. So, yes other writings are useful. Medical research journals are extremely important; biographies are useful in understanding the minds of the past and present; Scriptural commentaries are often helpful when wrestling with various Biblical passages. But of these there is no warrantee that they are on par with Scripture.
Most Christians I have read or conversed with don't believe in the Bible as the only text which betrays any and all truth whatever. I can only speak from personal experience, but most simply believe there is no higher authority. Other texts used, other traditions followed, must affirm what is in Scripture, not contradict it. That is the basic approach and one which is hard from a theological perspective to disagree with. What would be the point in following contrary teachings along with the Bible. That is the point.
So regardless of a proof for or against "Sola Scriptura" we can only know (Biblically speaking of course) that Scripture is the only text which is assured to be profitable in the manner mentioned above. It isn't this complicated conspiracy whereby "Christians" have pulled the proverbial wool over people's eyes and just "made it so" that no other readings are considered equal.
The challenge by various sects within Christianity to battle "Sola Scriptura" generally comes about, not because some Christian group wags a finger saying "Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura", but because of teachings the one sect wishes to bring to the table which have no basis in Scripture. The argument posed, "Should we follow 'X' tradition?" generally degrades into, "Is the Bible the only authority?". But really it is avoiding the initial question, "Why should we follow 'X' tradition?"
In my experience with the argument, most times what happens is that a tradition is questioned on the basis that it does not support or conform to Biblical teaching, not simply that a tradition isn't mentioned in the Bible. Christians follow many traditions which aren't mentioned in the Bible but which are seen as acceptable because of their complementary nature. Seen in this light, the "Sola Scriptura" argument is often a straw man argument, since Christians themselves (and I'm thinking of evangelicals here, since they are usually accused of falsely abiding by Sola Scriptura) generally do not suggest no truth is found outside of the Bible.
In conclusion we can see that, while the Bible does not say, "no other text is good," it only gives warranty to Scriptural writings. Taking this to mean that other writings can therefore be equal with Biblical text theologically, is fishing at the least.
Each tradition should be evaluated on its own merits, or lack thereof. We should not avoid the question by pointing to this "Sola Scriptura" problem.
Just to be clear, when I say that evangelicals generally don't say there is no truth outside the Bible, when asked, many will say there is no good text outside of the Bible in the context of all things being foolishness in comparison. In this context I would agree that nothing is good in relation. Everything must be viewed in context. My neighbor will say, love your neighbor (though he's not a believer). Is what he says not truth? Of course it is. It conforms to Scripture. Therefore, truth is written of, and spoken of outside of Scripture. Otherwise, Biblical commentaries would not have their place. As believers we should simply avoid anti-Scriptural teachings. It's quite simple.
The important thing here is what is not said. The Bible declares its worth, but does no such thing for other writings. So, yes other writings are useful. Medical research journals are extremely important; biographies are useful in understanding the minds of the past and present; Scriptural commentaries are often helpful when wrestling with various Biblical passages. But of these there is no warrantee that they are on par with Scripture.
Most Christians I have read or conversed with don't believe in the Bible as the only text which betrays any and all truth whatever. I can only speak from personal experience, but most simply believe there is no higher authority. Other texts used, other traditions followed, must affirm what is in Scripture, not contradict it. That is the basic approach and one which is hard from a theological perspective to disagree with. What would be the point in following contrary teachings along with the Bible. That is the point.
So regardless of a proof for or against "Sola Scriptura" we can only know (Biblically speaking of course) that Scripture is the only text which is assured to be profitable in the manner mentioned above. It isn't this complicated conspiracy whereby "Christians" have pulled the proverbial wool over people's eyes and just "made it so" that no other readings are considered equal.
The challenge by various sects within Christianity to battle "Sola Scriptura" generally comes about, not because some Christian group wags a finger saying "Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura", but because of teachings the one sect wishes to bring to the table which have no basis in Scripture. The argument posed, "Should we follow 'X' tradition?" generally degrades into, "Is the Bible the only authority?". But really it is avoiding the initial question, "Why should we follow 'X' tradition?"
In my experience with the argument, most times what happens is that a tradition is questioned on the basis that it does not support or conform to Biblical teaching, not simply that a tradition isn't mentioned in the Bible. Christians follow many traditions which aren't mentioned in the Bible but which are seen as acceptable because of their complementary nature. Seen in this light, the "Sola Scriptura" argument is often a straw man argument, since Christians themselves (and I'm thinking of evangelicals here, since they are usually accused of falsely abiding by Sola Scriptura) generally do not suggest no truth is found outside of the Bible.
In conclusion we can see that, while the Bible does not say, "no other text is good," it only gives warranty to Scriptural writings. Taking this to mean that other writings can therefore be equal with Biblical text theologically, is fishing at the least.
Each tradition should be evaluated on its own merits, or lack thereof. We should not avoid the question by pointing to this "Sola Scriptura" problem.
Just to be clear, when I say that evangelicals generally don't say there is no truth outside the Bible, when asked, many will say there is no good text outside of the Bible in the context of all things being foolishness in comparison. In this context I would agree that nothing is good in relation. Everything must be viewed in context. My neighbor will say, love your neighbor (though he's not a believer). Is what he says not truth? Of course it is. It conforms to Scripture. Therefore, truth is written of, and spoken of outside of Scripture. Otherwise, Biblical commentaries would not have their place. As believers we should simply avoid anti-Scriptural teachings. It's quite simple.
-
nikolayevich
- Scholar
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Post #7
This is a good example of tradition which can be passed through the filter of God's word for a verdict. Idolatry is non-scriptural and so tradition which upholds idolatry diminishes the authority of the Bible. Sola Scriptura isn't why idolatry is wrong. Idolatry is wrong according to the word of God. If one does not follow the word of God it is meaningless, however, if one attempts to follow the word of God, why would one make exemptions to what it says when outside teaching contradicts it. It simply is incongruent to believe the Bible AND contrary teachings. If one is using logic and at all esteems the law of non-contradiction, Sola Scriptura or some other fancy term term need not be invoked (although, arguably with the proper definition the term is important). It becomes rather a corollary as a result of necessity, the necessity being that in the case of opposing positions where one is considered true the other must be false. Sola Scriptura as a doctrine undoubtedly came about when this was recognized.youngborean wrote:New rituals defeat the Purpose of Christ fufilling the old ones. Espicially since prayer to wooden idols has always been spoken out against, it seems ridiculus that now we would be called to do so. Especially since Mary was in no way an incarnation of God. Paul did not preach Judaism, he showed that the perfect law of God had been fufilled in Christ, not negating the Rituals, fufilling them.
The poll question Max posed... "Do you believe in the Bible ALONE?" is only answerable within the context that it was intended to be answered. If the question is really, "Do you believe the Bible is the sole scriptural authority?" I could answer in the affirmative. That is what I believe Sola Scriptura was initially intended to mean (I've been trying to read about, to confirm its original meaning). If the question is really, "Is no truth found outside the Bible?" I would answer in the negative for reasons previously mentioned. The examples of Sola Scriptura that were "rebutted" by Max are not things I hear people talking about. In fact the examples of Sola Scriptura given are not even arguments the reformers intended, so far as my understanding is concerned. The emphasis was on returning authority to the Scriptures since the church had usurped and abused that same authority. It was not about simply rejecting traditions and liturgies, although many were rejected.
"Sola scriptura reverses the order of the Church's authority, as it is understood in the Catholic tradition. Instead of tradition being the interpreter of Scripture, sola scriptura makes Scripture the interpreter of tradition. It is the foundational claim of the Reformation." (Wikipedia)
So for example, conversation about whether everything that Jesus said was contained in the Bible is a totally different conversation from Sola Scriptura.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #8
youngborean wrote:
New traditions include getting together in Bible study groups, as well as many other things evangelicals do, I suppose. Are you sure you're not thinking only of condemning traditions you disagree with?So it seems that the addition of new traditions has become the worst type of Idolatry
Post #9
Hold on there! This may be a minor point, but Christian Orthodox and Catholicism were not yet two different Christian trebuchets at this time. St. Paul is also an Orthodox figure. The capitalized term Catholic didn't get applied until the 16th century, in the shadow of the Reformation. Paul could be called catholic with a lowercase c, but he was just a Christian.MaxBecher wrote:St. Paul was a Jewish convert to Catholicism. And he was 100% Catholic at the time he wrote to the Thessalonians and Corinthians. You don't think Paul was going all over the world spreading Judaism, do you? No, he was spreading Catholicism. If St. Paul was not talking about the traditions of the Church, then what was he talking about?
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #10
Good point. I should have elaborated. Traditions that are taught to affect salvation are idolatry (protocol in communion, pennance, etc). A bible study means nothing to salvation, only a tool that uphold the authority of scripture.New traditions include getting together in Bible study groups, as well as many other things evangelicals do, I suppose. Are you sure you're not thinking only of condemning traditions you disagree with?
