Posted on 05/31/2010 6:33:12 AM PDT by Cronos
1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura?
2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." --> it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. helpful. the entire verse from 14 to 17 says "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"
3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible?
4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of traidition condemned
5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brehtern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"
6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God
However, Paul advised Timothy to take as his norm the sound words that Paul spoke to him1. The Apostles preached one body of truth when they were alive. They wrote the truth and preached the truth. Both were authoritative.(2 Tim. 1:13) 13What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
Timothy knew that even if a particular teaching was not written down, Christians were still expected to abide by it
(2 Thess. 2:15) 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
and to defer to the authority of Church leaders (Heb. 13:17) 17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
2. The Gospel revelation was given once to the Apostles and saints while they were alive.
Jude 1:3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
3. Unfortunately, for the Catholic e-pologist, any mention of tradition or reference to "word of mouth", rings the pavlov bell and the e-pologist starts salivating "unwritten oral docrine". To insert an anachronistic meaning to tradition is totally without warrant. It is NOT what the early church fathers thought
Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
for Irenaeus, the content of tradition and Scripture is the same. As J.N.D. Kelly observes:
The whole point of his (Irenaeus’) teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation. If tradition was conveyed in the ‘canon’ is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously set out.In fact Catholic e-pologist have more in common with Gnostics according to Irenaeus
When however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (orally)...For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to &‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves.http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html The burden of proof is entirely yours to prove that the Apostles preached Oral doctrine, not recorded in scripture and still binding!
All the distint Catholic only doctrine appears MANY HUNDREDS of YEARS after the apostles had passed away!
History and the testimony of the church fathers declare you to be in error.
Burning off temporal punishments and impurities.
Hi Bkaycee- I am moving so I am packing books. I just found The early Christian beliefs: I am reading Irenaeus. It has piecemeal paragraph Quotes. “For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to &‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves.” Thats not clear on an absolute. Its a certain specific not what they already know from tradition. Did you see about the Eucharist. If you did are you quick to show he believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “the wine and bread having received the Word of God, become the Eucharist, which is the Body of Christ. Irenaeus( 180 a.d.) and theres many more. And thanks for both sides I am learning from both on this discussion. You all are helping me check more out in Christian history.
Ah, we all pray for you to return to Christ. The way is to give up the false teachings of the pastor of whichever sub-group and return to Christ and His Church.
Look I’m not perfect in a complete knowledge of scripture but how do explain this- You statement; “ Tradition is never said to be God breathed. Scripture is GOD Breathed (theopneustos), tradition is certainly NOT.” In Scripture that very word is used also here From Christ himself spoken word since Christ is God. We should also note he supercedes anyone on how to interpret. That said Its when he begins the Church in John - what about Jesus breathing on the apostles is this not the start of the church tradition which shows it supercedes for Apostles on how to interpret——————————— 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. AS the Father has Sent me, Even so I am Sending You.” 22 And when he had said this, he Breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”- Since Jesus is God He is giving them the power of attorney in his name. He BREATHED. Its not just about confession Its Totally about the authority he gives them-Notice As the Father Sent me, even so I am Sending You. Peter healed in Jesus name. Thru apostolic priesthood thru time. The Breath oF God was thru People. The breath of God was on people who wrote scripture. Also note The authority of a person who read scripture to the assembly. Why does faith come by hearing? It does not say from reading. Note Romans 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The Head Christian would read from authority.
I found this it pertains to what you are writing. Just for the record If we claim what the early church fathers wrote. We have to put it in balance.-—Apostolic Tradition
Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.
Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
...
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Athanasius
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Chrysostom
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
Vincent of Lerins
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
Pope Agatho
“[T]he holy Church of God . . . has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [and possesses that faith that] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls” (Letter read at fourth session of III Constantinople [A.D. 680]).http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
Your answer that the tradition came before Scripture told me everything I needed to know. Because what we know about the Old and New Testaments are recorded in Scripture; any way tradition could have arrived at would have to have been through the Scriptures since the Apostles are long gone.
Therefore to arrive at any tradition that is not based upon the Scriptures would be to conjure them or make them up. This is the danger, for if they can be made up right now then the authority is in the hands of fallible men.
The attack upon Scripture is a sophistry attack and an attempt to undermine the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments since it claims authority outside the Scriptures that God has clearly given. Indeed, isn't that is what Serpent started with "Has indeed God said?" - the M.O. to question the Authority of God and His Word craftily.
So I place the putting of tradition above God's Word and splitting God's Word from the Bible as such .
Turn away from such craftiness as soon as you possibly can. For any such trust outside the Scriptures is sinking sand. Trust upon Christ Himself, for He is the Solid Rock alone.
Further discussion regarding tradition will be fruitless, for you can do nothing apart from Christ.
God's Holy Bible is not a rough draft. It is written.
Go right ahead if it makes you happy. I on the other hand have been praying for you to actually FIND Christ to begin with. Matthew 7:21-23 -
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition
The key is what did they mean by Tradition
The quotes you list are silent on exactly what they meant by Tradtion.
1) The apostolic teaching or doctrine handed down from the apostles to the Church—called the apostolic tradition.
2) Ecclesiastical customs and practices.
3) A patristic consensus of the interpretation of Scripture.
Heiko Oberman makes these comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the early Church:
Scripture and Tradition were for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The Tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition (The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366).
It is true that the early Church held to the concept of Traditon as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices and that they often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles even though could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. But these practices did not involve the doctrines of the faith and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church. An example of this is found early on in the second century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a certain day, while the West celebrated it on a different one, but both claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the Apostles. It actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who was demanding that the Eastern fathers submit to the Western parctice. This they refused to do firmly believing that they were adhering to Apostolic Tradition. Which one is correct? There is no way to ascertain which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. And there are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a particular Church father claims that a particular practice is of Apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily is. All it means is that he believes it was. But there is no way to verify if in fact it truly was a tradition from the apostles. There are numerous practices which the early Church engaged in which they believed were of Apostolic origin which are listed for us by Basil the Great which no one in the Church practices today. So clearly, such appeals to oral Apostolic Tradition are meaningless.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral Apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for the justification for such a claim, where Paul states that he handed on traditions or teachings to this Chruch in both oral and written form. Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an appeal is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines that Paul is referring to which they claim they possess and which are binding upon men. In all the writings of apologists from the Reformation to the present day no one has been able to list the doctrines that comprise this supposed Apostolic Oral Tradition. From Francis De Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is this conspicuous absence. Sungenis is editor of a work recently released on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of Tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura. It is 627 pages in length. But not once in the entire 627 pages does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed Apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men. All we are told is that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound therefore to submit to this Church which alone possesses the fulness of God's revelation from the Apostles. But they can't tell us what it is. And the reason is because it doesn't exist. If they are of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures? I defy anyone to list the doctrines Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians.
http://www.ccc138.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=259
William Webster has pointed out, "This tradition referred primarily to ecclesiastical practices and customs and not to doctrine" [Holy Scripture Vol. 2, p.139]. Similarly, after discussing Basil and other Early Church Fathers, the great patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly noted, "Indeed, all the instances of unwritten tradition lacking Scriptural support which the early theologians mention will be found, on examination to refer to matters of observance and practice (e.g. triple immersion in baptism; turning East for prayer) rather than of doctrine as such, although sometimes they are matters (e.g. infant baptism; prayers for the dead) in which doctrine is involved) [J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: HarperSan Francisco, 1960), p. 47]. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2628
Benny Hinn is the worst kind of huckster. Using relgion to pad his pocket. Hi Judgement will be brutal.
Strange, how he can only heal paying customers on stage. When he starts healing ALL the children at a hospital ward, then i might notice.
Yes, the craziest thing is that he and his ilk like Joyce Meyers, Creflo Dollar etc. seem to be pulling in folks. That’s what I was warning conservagrammar about.
To keep it simple without 5 million words on both sides. Its the authority of the Church. Apostolic tradition. He breathed on them. Period! First came the Church everything followed. Which is still here.
I don't follow Benny Hinn, LOL! He's a nut.
But then again I'd take even that nutball over your koran kissing apostate popes and heretical dogmas that the early church fathers proclaimed as heresy! Revelation 18:4 - I heard another voice from heaven, saying, " Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;
P.S. If you continue to post to me regarding my 'false pastors' and 'false religion' - I'm posting right back at you your own HERETICAL FAITH.
No need. Its those who DON'T know the Scriptures and DON'T understand what sola Scriptura really means who are taken in by the hucksters.
Even those hucksters who call themselves 'popes'. :)
Even Pope Shenouda?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.