Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open)

www.cronos.com ^ | 31-May-2010 | Self Topic

[bkaycee]

You do have the doctrines in the Church from Apostolic times. These are referred in the Transitus Mariae (Passage of Mary)

That is CLEARLY NOT true. The Transitus Mariae is apochryphal document found some 400 YEARS after the Apostles!

The truth is that, as with the teaching of the immaculate conception, the Roman Church has embraced and is responsible for promoting teachings which originated, not with the faithful, but with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

History proves that when the Transitus teaching originated the Church regarded it as heresy. In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162).

This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble.

And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius.

Your claim of apostolic oral tradition for the assumption is historically false and anachronistic.

Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).

[Cronos]

The attack upon Christ here is upon His preeminence and an attempt to supplant the Holy Scriptures with the Traditions of Men.

And I repeat that sola scriptura is what attack's Christ by denying His pre-eminence and limiting Him to just the Written Word. Sola scriptura is a tradition of Man.

Holy Tradition is just that, the Traditions as set by Christ, not man.

[Cvengr]

As soon as one adds anything to faith alone in Christ alone it voids the faith in Him. Scripture providing us His Word is sufficient for all good works in the life of every believer in God’s Plan.

The doctrine you seek to attack is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

[daniel1212]

True, and Scripture provides for the church and teachers, (Luke 10:16) etc. which authority SS is misconstrued as rejecting, but Scripture is alone the supreme objective authority by which all truth claims are tested.

“Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (John 7:41-42)

“They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” (John 7:52)

(As the prophets had declared that the Messiah was to come from the tribe of Judah, and from the family of David, and should be born in the city of Bethlehem, [Mic. 5:2] these Jews, imagining that Christ had been born in Galilee, concluded that he could not be the Messiah. Had they examined the matter a little farther, they would have found that he had his birth exactly as the prophets had foretold. - Clarke)

“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. “ (Luke 24:27)

“And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,” (Acts 17:2)

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

“And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” (Acts 15:15-17)

“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)

“And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 28:23)

The apostles did add (by writing or sanction) to the yet open canon, (2Pet. 3:16) these being, like Moses, powerfully attested to by supernatural signs (2Cor. 12:12) and holy life, while their preaching was manifestly Scriptural and could pass that test. (Acts 17:11) However, the canon being close, to hold another source of Divine revelation to be of equal authority is to essentially add to the canon, and the subjective is proved by the objective.

[conservativegramma]

Thank you for your informative post of 1,001 outlining the historical catholic position on ‘Mariology’ being heretical and was condemned as heresy by the church. Interesting that what was formerly heresy is now dogma. We knew that already of course, but that really says it all don’t it? Good work.

[conservativegramma]

Another good post in Post #1004

If I may I would like to post the pertinent Old Testament passage that points to the Messiah coming from Galilee:

A Messianic Passage Isaiah 9:1 - "But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles."

If I may expound on your references (John 7:41-42; John 7:52) the knowledge that the Messiah would come from Galilee should have been known by all, but unfortunately wasn't. Why? Because not all studied the Scriptures, others followed after rabbinical tradition. Those who knew the Scriptures understood the Galilee reference and were able to recognize their Messiah when he came (John 7:41-42); those who followed after tradition could not recognize His appearance (John 7:52) and rejected Him.

There is a warning here for anyone and everyone, Catholic or Protestant, when you follow tradition at the expense of Scripture you will no longer be able to recognize truth when it comes.

Thanks for another great post!

[Cronos]

As soon as one adds anything to faith alone in Christ alone it voids the faith in Him. Scripture providing us His Word is sufficient for all good works in the life of every believer in God’s Plan.

Don't you see the irony in what you said, Faith in CHRIST (aka The WORD) alone is good, faith in ONLY the WRITTEN Word is limiting Christ as it voids the Faith in Him.

The doctrine I see to attack is the doctrine of putting Scripture (one aspect of The WOrd) above the entire WORD of God (Christ).

SOLA Scriptura is just plain wrong for that reason -- it seeks to limit God.

[bkaycee]

SOLA Scriptura is just plain wrong for that reason -- it seeks to limit God.

God Himself has placed a limit on what He reveals to us.

Tradition is never said to be God breathed. Scripture is GOD Breathed (theopneustos), tradition is certainly NOT.

Psalm 138:2 I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.

1 Cor 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Isaiah 55:7 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.

[daniel1212]

More accurately, while at some point part of Scripture was the oral “word of God” before being written, (Ex. 24:4; Dt. 5:22; 31:34; Jer. 36:4) the Scriptures are only the objective authority which are affirmed to be wholly God-breathed, and thus becomes the authority by which all preaching, personal revelation (like “God spoke to my heart”) etc, can be tested, even as the noble Bereans exampled in examining the preaching of the very apostles. While some presume authority to give authority to teaching which fails that test, this was in error of the Pharisees in Mk. 7:9-13. And thus any purported or subjective “word of God” is subject to the established objective word of God.

[Cronos]

1. Yes, SCripture is God breathed, however St Paul tells us to stand fast to our traditions (God's Holy Tradition).
2. "your Word" i.e. God's Word --> as I keep repeating, that is not limited to ONLY scripture.
3. 1 Cor 4.6 --> I pointed out that this needs to be read in context of the entire 1 Cor 4. This is

[bkaycee]

Yes, SCripture is God breathed, however St Paul tells us to stand fast to our traditions (God's Holy Tradition).

And you can in no way know what these "traditions" were.

With a proper context for this verse the meaning is made clear.

Obviously, Paul was not saying, ‘Hold to Scripture and some oral component.’ In context, his meaning is much simpler.

When you read the preceding verses, and take into account the context, Paul’s meaning is simple. Paul had preached the gospel to the Thessalonians in person.

He was now writing to them. He has just noted the gospel, and he is saying, ‘Hold to the body of teaching, i.e., the gospel, that I have delivered to you, both in person and by letter.’

The letter, of course, was what we call 1 Thessalonians. The content is the gospel. We are to hold to the faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Thessalonian believers were privileged to learn, at that unique time of apostolic ministry, both from an apostle (Paul), and from a letter directly from him.

your Word" i.e. God's Word --> as I keep repeating, that is not limited to ONLY scripture.

Offcourse at various times God's Word was first spoken before being written down.

Can you provide any quotes from the Oral Words of God that we know have not been written?

Merely ascribing an anachronistic definition onto the word 'tradition', any time you come across it in scripture, is hardly proof of anything.

In fact if you insist that Paul's "tradition" included purgatory and the marian doctrines, you are dead set against those like Newman who excuse the obvious lack of historical evidence for such doctrine by inventing his development theory.

[sr4402]

Sola scriptura is a tradition of Man.

Scripture is given by God not man. Thus it is Holy, infallable and inerrant. Christ's commandments are not tradations, they are not optional.

Again, you are minimizing the importance of Christ and His Word and thus an attack upon Christ Himself.

Besides, did not Christ say that "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that procedes from the mouth of God."?? The Christ lives by the Word of God, are you a Christian?

[sr4402]

Correction: The Christian lives by the Word of God, are you a Christian?

[sr4402]

Correction: The Christian lives by the Word of God according to the Lord Jesus Christ, are you a Christian?

[Cronos]

Scripture is given by God not man. Thus it is Holy, infallable and inerrant.

I AGREE with that -- I DISagree with SOLA scriptura (i.e. ONLY scripture -- THAT is unbiblical)

Christ's commandments are not tradations, they are not optional.

Christ's commandments were part of Holy Tradition before scripture was compiled. They still are as scripture was birthed from Holy Tradition (the days of the 1st century).

By using the word ONLY scripture, you minimize the importance of Christ and limit His Word. This is an attack upon Christ Himself.

Christ said that "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that procedes from the mouth of God." --> the WORD. At no point is this limited to the WRITTEN WORD. "In the beginning was the Word." --> please understand this, there is no dispute about the holiness, sanctity and Godly origin of scripture. The dispute is about the unbiblical, unscriptural and God-limiting concept of "sola" scriptura.

By limiting God to just the Bible, the proponents of sola scriptura seek to put limits on God, which is inherently wrong.

Reminder: There is no dispute that Scripture is given by God not man and is Holy, infallible and inerrant and there is no dispute that Christ is Lord and God and The WORD of God. The dispute is over the limitation of God to only the WRITTEN Word.

Man shall not live by bread alone by by every word that proceeds from the MOUTH of God"

[Cronos]

If I ask you "What is the sure norm by which Christians know the teachings of Christ?"

you will answer SOLA scriptura (please correct me if this is a wrong assumption)

However, Paul advised Timothy to take as his norm the sound words that Paul spoke to him (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.

. The only way a person could know what these unwritten binding traditions were was to keep their ear to the mouth of the Church. If the Church were merely a collection of saved individuals-none with any real authority over the others-then Scripture would not tout her as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)

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.

whom we must listen to or be cut off (Matt: 18:17)

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector

Nothing in scripture indicates what the canon of the New Testament should be, but this silence in no way hindered the Church from exercising the authority given to her by Christ (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:17-18) to decide the canon under the power of the Holy Spirit which still pervades and guides the Church

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter's journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary's Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.

Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

"Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires" (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

[Cronos]

Let’s step back and bit. If I may humbly ask you, what do you think The Church means by Purgatory?

[sr4402]

By using the word ONLY scripture, you minimize the importance of Christ and limit His Word. This is an attack upon Christ Himself.

Did you not look at the Scriptures I first sent you, that Christ is the Word of God?? The Scriptures are Holy because Christ is Holy. Treating anything above Scripture is not to treat Christ as Holy.

No what is happening here is an attempt to undermine Christ and the Scriptures He directed to be written. It is an attempt to undermine the Scriptures and replace it with traditions whatever it is deemed to be.

I've asked if you are a Christian since the Scriptures sent seem to have no impact. When every I have mentioned Christ's preeminence, I have heard no Amen.

Many folks know about Christ, but do not know Him personally as Lord. You see the trouble is trusting in anything else besides Him is not Faith. Salvation plus anything but Faith (belief upon Christ) is not Salvation. Trusting in Tradition is trusting something else besides Christ. And trusting in anything that is not God quickly becomes an Idol in ones life. The Scriptures are right when it says that Idols quickly turn folks from God.

Since the Scriptures were supervised and ordained by God, and He Himself calls Himself the Word of God, therefore it and He alone is completely trustworthy and worthy of Faith.

No, Cronos, what you have been doing is putting Traditions importance above Scripture saying it came before Scripture when it came from the mind of God before the foundation of the World. You have been putting Traditions above Christ.

Again, I must ask you if you are a Christian since you have put Tradition ahead of His Word and Himself. Have you put your faith upon Christ alone as your personal Savior to pay for all your sins? Have you turned away from your own life and called Him alone Lord? Or have you devoted your life to the variable traditions of fickle men and the mess of pottage that it is?

Finnaly, I remind you of what Christ said to Peter "Come and follow Me". Will you forsake the traditions of men and come and follow Christ? When the rich young ruler was asked, he loved riches more than Christ. Will you love tradition more than Him? Peter turned and followed Christ, will you?

[Cronos]

Did you not look at the Scriptures I first sent you, that Christ is the Word of God?? The Scriptures are Holy because Christ is Holy. Treating anything above Scripture is not to treat Christ as Holy.

Sigh, we're talking at cross purposes.

Let me repeat:
1. To me as to The Church, Christ is the WORD of God (Christ is not JUST the Written Word but the WORD)
2. The Scriptures are Holy, inerrant and infallible -- that is Church teaching
3. Tradition and The Church are not above Scripture in any way -- that is NOT Church teaching. As I've repeated ad nauseum -- in no way does any Church teaching or Holy Tradition contradict Scripture. It cannot

Name one place where scripture is REPLACED with something from Holy Tradition. It can't be replaced, that is contrary to God's teachings through His Church.

Remember -- it is CHRIST's pre-eminence.

I worship Christ, I don't worship the Bible --> are you Christian or Bibliotarian? You most definitely worship Christ, the LIVING Word, not just one aspect of Him (not just the Written Word).
You consider Christ 100% and 100% God, not just either/or.
You consider God to be Father, Son AND Holy Spirit not Father OR Son OR holy Spirit. In the same way, the WORD of God is not to be divided and put as ONLY the Written Word.

You must trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord and God alone. Remember the Church principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone'. --> The WORD alone, not just the written word

And, you make the false accusation of "No, Cronos, what you have been doing is putting Traditions importance above Scripture saying it came before Scripture when it came from the mind of God before the foundation of the World. You have been putting Traditions above Christ" --> where exactly have I put Tradition above Scripture? Holy Tradition came before Scripture -- that is a fact, or else tell me what did the First Century Christians have when the epistles were being written? Christianity spread by the WORD, the spoken Word.

Christ said to Peter "Come and follow Me". Leave the traditions of men like SOLA Scriptura and follow Christ alone, sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone'

[Cronos]

Scripture when it came from the mind of God before the foundation of the World

now in this you are talking about the authorship i.e. the Creator of scripture -- and God did that,just as God was the author, the creator, the initiator of Holy Tradition and the creator, the author of the community of believers that is The Church.