Posted on 09/13/2014 11:35:30 AM PDT by Blind Eye Jonez
It never stops to amaze me, and at a time when real Christians in the Muslim countries are losing their lives for the Lord, that we still have arguments over scripture and tradition vs. scripture alone.
On another thread I saw a Catholic remark that Protestants are worse than moslems because the moslem will only kill your body while the Protestant will destroy your soul.
So where do you go from there?
Thank you very much. I will enjoy reading these posts.
Note the word "honors" and "honored".....NOT worshipped. That is what "veneration" means. Catholic doctrine is VERY explicit on the subject....."worhsip" (latria) is given only the God...."veneration/honor" (dulia) is given to any worthy individual.
""Hail Mary ...". Mary was a human, is now dead. Same with the Apostles. They are dead, praying to them is praying to the dead."
But they are not dead.....they are living in Heaven, and thus more "alive" than they ever were here on earth. As are the Saints, and anyone else who didn't need a "rest stop" in Purgatory.
"Exclusion of the Apocrypha works was long before Luther and includes St Jerome and Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria. Even Jewish historian Josephus excluded Macabees from the Hebrew Cannon."
Yes, indeed. And mistakenly so. Such exclusion is based on the Hebrews re-defining what constituted the Old Testament...an action taken about one hundred years AFTER Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Unsurprisingly, a big part of that re-definition was to eliminate any texts that might refer to either Jesus or the topic of resurrection. They accomplished this by dropping any books whose original language was Greek rather than Hebrew.
"Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
I repeat.....what exactly is "vain repetition"??? Of course ANY heathen prayer is "in vain". But I fail to see how any CHRISTIAN prayer can be "vain". Even protestants repeat the "Lord's Prayer".
Since Jesus himself taught from Hebrew tradition as well as Old Testament scripture, Jesus by his own actions demonstrated that "sola scriptura" was wrong. If "all that was essential" was in scripture, then he wouldn't have used Hebrew tradition, now would he.
"I disagree; as someone upthread mentioned: Jesus used scripture as his reply to Satan. He would certainly be in the right to reply on his own authority [being the Creator] but he did not — instead he quoted/cited scripture. Does this not imply we ought to have greatest respect for the scripture?
See above point.....Jesus himself taught both from Scripture AND Tradition. The fact that he quoted Scripture to Satan doesn't prove (or even address) the point.
"His own language? I don't believe that for a second: from nearly the beginning of its inception the New Testament was translated into other languages, and on Pentecost men heard "in their own language" not were suddenly able to understand Hebrew. (And prior to this the Old Testament had been translated into at least Greek.)
You miss the point. Your comments relate to HUMAN languages. God speaks physics (or perhaps mathematics), and his WORD became the universe within which we live. Thus, we have TWO sources of "God's Word" at a minimum.....the Bible and the Universe. Hence "sola scriptura" is ridiculous on its face.
That was a medieval maxim: God wrote two books, the Bible and Creation.
"I don't think anyone is saying that there are no traditions; but the sola scriptura proponents [of which I am a member] claim that all that is essential is already covered in the scripture — moreover, the role of the Holy Spirit (his work and purpose) fits nicely with this idea... for our God is not dead, but lives and works in the world even now.Since Jesus himself taught from Hebrew tradition as well as Old Testament scripture, Jesus by his own actions demonstrated that "sola scriptura" was wrong. If "all that was essential" was in scripture, then he wouldn't have used Hebrew tradition, now would he.
Being a part of a culture, you would naturally use cultural references — that Jesus did this with Hebrew culture does not mean that Hebrew culture is superior. (Indeed, he acted in severely and distinctly counter-cultural manners as well: talking with a Samaritan woman, not stoning an [accused] adulteress, hanging out
with sinners and tax-collectors [i.e. the scum of the earth].)
"I disagree; as someone upthread mentioned: Jesus used scripture as his reply to Satan. He would certainly be in the right to reply on his own authority [being the Creator] but he did not — instead he quoted/cited scripture. Does this not imply we ought to have greatest respect for the scripture?
See above point.....Jesus himself taught both from Scripture AND Tradition. The fact that he quoted Scripture to Satan doesn't prove (or even address) the point.
I'm sorry; but nowhere do I see that tradition should be set on equal footing with scripture; nowhere does the Bible say that tradition can save, yet we are told to receive with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls
(James 1:21) — John does not say in the beginning was the tradition, and the tradition was with God, and the tradition was God […] and the tradition became flesh and lived among us
; no, John says that of the word — that is why Jesus fulfills the Law, the Prophets, and the Scripture: He is the Word.
"His own language? I don't believe that for a second: from nearly the beginning of its inception the New Testament was translated into other languages, and on Pentecost men heard "in their own language" not were suddenly able to understand Hebrew. (And prior to this the Old Testament had been translated into at least Greek.)
You miss the point. Your comments relate to HUMAN languages. God speaks physics (or perhaps mathematics), and his WORD became the universe within which we live. Thus, we have TWO sources of "God's Word" at a minimum.....the Bible and the Universe. Hence "sola scriptura" is ridiculous on its face.
And see the above: the very fact that the word creates he universe undermines the assertion you make that tradition is on equal footing.
Exactly.
But they are dead and remain so till the Resurrection.
1 Cor 15:51-52
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Well that certainly is the Catholic church's view isn't it.
How may "Hail Marys" have been required after the end of a confession? These are certainly vain repetitions.
You're forgetting that God's revelation of His Will/Covenants/Testament was chronologically progressive in nature,finally completed by the unveiling of the Apocalyptic prophecy shown by God to Christ and written down by John. There has been no further words from Jehovah since. Scripture is, by definition, graven.
Thank you, I may. And I am sorry for my (negative) attitude, sometimes God uses the littlest things to humble us, and I appreciate your Christian brotherhood.
I am just a humble sinner as you are, and whatever brings us closer to Christ is good and worthy.
-JS
No worries, FRiend.
Uh, I never said Hebrew culture was superior....just that Jesus taught from both the Hebrew written scripture AND the spoken Hebrew religious tradition. Note that that does not imply that Hebrew written scripture and Hebrew spoken tradition are "on an equal footing".
"I'm sorry; but nowhere do I see that tradition should be set on equal footing with scripture
Of course you can't see it. You're a Protestant, and have been taught from your childhood that "only the Bible" is valid. But the simple fact is that I have claimed no such thing.
"nowhere does the Bible say that tradition can save, yet we are told to "receive with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls" (James 1:21)
Uh, "implanted word" could refer to either written OR spoken word.
"John does not say "in the beginning was the tradition, and the tradition was with God, and the tradition was God […] and the tradition became flesh and lived among us"; no, John says that of the word — that is why Jesus fulfills the Law, the Prophets, and the Scripture: He is the Word."
And God SAID, let there be light...... Note...NOT "..and God WROTE". God SPOKE, THEN he "wrote" the universe. Note that the spoken word came first.
"And see the above: the very fact that the word creates he universe undermines the assertion you make that tradition is on equal footing.
Again...."God SAID"....not "God WROTE". If anything, the ordering implies that tradition (spoken word) is superior to scripture (written word). Not that I am by any means claiming that.
But I think that since Jesus himself used both written AND spoken Hebrew concepts says AT MINIMUM that the New Testament writings and Christian tradition are both valid sources of knowledge and understanding about Jesus and salvation......NOT "sola scriptura".
Nope....your own quote immediately below disproves that.
"1 Cor 15:51-52 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed
Uh, "We shall not all sleep...." If they're not all sleeping, then "some" of them must be awake. Which is precisely the Catholic church's position...."some" of the righteous (Mary, the Apostles, and "the saints" (some of whom are known, but most of whom are not)) are awake.
"How may "Hail Marys" have been required after the end of a confession? These are certainly vain repetitions."
LOL. I have NEVER said a "Hail Mary" after confession, much less repeated it.
traditionNote that the theology/Jews definition is... misleading; otherwise Jesus would not have been able to say
- the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
- something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
- a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
- a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
- a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.
- Theology.
- (among Jews) body of laws and doctrines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Moses and originally handed down orally from generation to generation.
- (among Christians) a body of teachings, or any one of them, held to have been delivered by Christ and His apostles but not originally committed to writing.
- (among Muslims) a hadith.
- Law. an act of handing over something to another, especially in a formal legal manner; delivery; transfer.
by your tradition you make the law of God of no effect.
Seems like a big stretch to me; far more likely is the interpretation that those that are awake
are those believers that are [at that moment] alive on Earth. (Notice, in particular, the 'we' in this letter to the church that is being addressed.)
Quote- So where do you go from there?
‘Come out of her, my people’ is where you go from there...
The farther, the better...
I don't see that as a proof text for Sola Scriptura. Any word that Jesus spoke to the adversary would be Scripture if it were recorded. He spoke many words that were not recorded. He is the very Word of God. I think something else was going on in that event, ie., the temptation. These are the texts that I recall involve a direct conversation between the LORD and the adversary. Consider the temptation dialogue. The adversary tried to tempt Jesus by either alluding to Scripture (Deut 8:3 for first and various messianic scriptures for the third) or referring to it directly (Psalm 91:11-12). Jesus responded to the adversary's scriptural references with scriptural correction. If you stretch the point to bring in all the other times he used scripture I point out again that everything he said that was recorded was scripture and everything he said that was not recorded is still the Word of God. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
No, you're just not thinking far enough. The usual sequence is "spoken word"-->tradition (via. use over a long period of time)-->written. And in fact, that is precisely the sequence by with the New Testament scriptures were arrived at. For some variablly recognized period of time, Christians had ONLY tradition and the Old Testament scripture....the New Testament did not exist.
"Note that the theology/Jews definition is... misleading; otherwise Jesus would not have been able to say "by your tradition you make the law of God of no effect"."
Not misleading at all. Jesus's overall point was that SOME traditions are valid (those from which he taught) and some were not (those of the Pharisee/scribes). Thus, both those valid concepts which were eventually written, and those valid concepts that remained spoken ALSO remained valid teachings. There is no basis AT ALL for "sola scriptura" other than Luther's fiat...."because I will have it so".
"(RE...all sleep).
"Seems like a big stretch to me; far more likely is the interpretation that those that are "awake" are those believers that are [at that moment] alive on Earth. (Notice, in particular, the 'we' in this letter to the church that is being addressed.)"
Except that the historical fact is that the Church that existed since Pentecost taught precisely that the Saints and others were awake and alive up until Luther. That Protestants choose to ignore all that history certainly doesn't validate Luther's position.
What is sad to see is the no one has attempted to define WHAT sola scriptoria is...all you are doing is talking past one another..
The sola scriptoria as seen in the article of the OP is NOT what sola scriptoria is nor what the reformers meant. The reformers did NOT throw away tradition, they did NOT throw away the writings of the early church fathers, they did NOT throw away creeds and early church councilor decisions such as Nicaea, Chalcedon etc....
In the early church basically scriptureis the same as the apostolic tradition and apostolic tradition is the same as scripture. In essence scripture is the apostolic teaching WRITTEN DOWN. It was the Regula Fide of the church. It is the faith/doctrines that the church has always believed.
Where Protestants and Roman Catholics (RCC) disagree id when the RCC says that there are unwritten traditions. That is where the disagreement lies. The RCC wants to hold the Christian conscience captive to what is unwriitten, what they say is tradition. Unfortunately for them there are many doctrines/dogmas that they hold to that we’re never propagated by the scriptures NOR the apostolic/early church fathers such as the Marian dogmas, papal primacy etc...
An again I challenge the Roman Catholics here to show me ONE doctrine that is necessary for salvation that is NOT found in scripture but comes to us from tradition alone!! And again I say if there is none then YOUR position is moot and sola scriptoria stands as a correct principle of the reformation.
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.