Clarifying sola Scriptura

[dasmokeryaget]

What I find most intriguing is Holy Tradition does not contradict Holy Scripture. The two support one another, yet people reject Tradition.

Not all tradition is Holy. Traditions such as described by Jesus below are not Holy. It is those traditions that we reject.



Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

[GiantNinja]

Tuttle and Fred: how do you judge which 'traditions' are good and which are bad? By what authority?

I would argue that Sola Fide, for instance, (which I define as a belief in justification by faith alone) is plainly contradicted by James. You interpret James differently. By what authority do you judge your interpretation to be 'right', and your tradition, therefore, to be 'good'?

EDIT: I note this not for the sake of starting a fight, but rather because I believe that it may shed some light on Sola Scriptura.

[dasmokeryaget]

I believe that Sola Scriptura is a postion or concept that only exist as a refutation to the extra-Biblical doctrines and practices of Catholicism. It's misunderstood and at times taken to the far extreme, but it's an effective position.

I could be wrong.

[Kerdy]

What I find most intriguing is Holy Tradition does not contradict Holy Scripture. The two support one another, yet people reject Tradition.

sola Scriptura does not reject tradition. It rejects bad tradition. It seeks to guard tradition, to assure that tradition remains pure.

Even if this were true, it still leaves which Tradition open for interpretation and choosing. The person chooses which they like/agree with and which they do not.

If I took this approach to Christianity as a whole, I would have rejected most of what I have learned in a life time to accept.

The problem with what you have stated is, most of what comes from protestants is not acceptance of "good" tradition, rather rejecting Tradition as a whole, claiming it is all bad or not pure. Which Tradition (big T there) does the SBC accept, or the Presbyterian U.S.A. churches, or UCC or the United Methodists accept as good and in turn which do they reject as bad. In fact, there is only Holy Tradition, not varying degrees of that Tradition. Anything outside that Tradition is something entirely different.

So, the real question is, what do you accept as real tradition and what do you reject based on your sola scriptura beliefs?

[Kerdy]

What I find most intriguing is Holy Tradition does not contradict Holy Scripture. The two support one another, yet people reject Tradition.

People reject God too. Not everybody, but some. Just the same, not everybody rejects Tradition. Though it has nothing to do with the OP, and I have no desire to flesh this out, I will say that most Protestants don't "reject Tradition". We reject some Tradition - Tradition that is fundamental to Catholicism, so we are at odds, but don't think we reject that which is right and true.

EDIT: Tuttle was replying at the same time as me. As it happens, we agree on this point.

So you reject Catholicism for being Catholic, and reject their Tradition because it’s Catholic and not because of what you were taught as a protestant. This seems more anti-Catholic than anything else.
But again, who gets to dictate which is good and which is bad tradition, you? This responsibility seems to lie within each denomination, the same denominations that all claim Sola Scriptura, but never agree with one another on what scripture is really saying. If you are unable to agree on scripture, it’s no wonder you can’t agree on Tradition.

[Kerdy]

What I find most intriguing is Holy Tradition does not contradict Holy Scripture. The two support one another, yet people reject Tradition.

Not all tradition is Holy. Traditions such as described by Jesus below are not Holy. It is those traditions that we reject.



Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

You speak of tradition, not Tradition. Why is this so confusing?

[Kerdy]

Tuttle and Fred: how do you judge which 'traditions' are good and which are bad? By what authority?

I would argue that Sola Fide, for instance, (which I define as a belief in justification by faith alone) is plainly contradicted by James. You interpret James differently. By what authority do you judge your interpretation to be 'right', and your tradition, therefore, to be 'good'?

EDIT: I note this not for the sake of starting a fight, but rather because I believe that it may shed some light on Sola Scriptura.

I could be wrong but, by their own definitions (or lack thereof), I would categorize Sola Scriptura as a man created tradition.

[Kerdy]

I believe that Sola Scriptura is a postion or concept that only exist as a refutation to the extra-Biblical doctrines and practices of Catholicism. It's misunderstood and at times taken to the far extreme, but it's an effective position.

I could be wrong.

Acceptance of Sola Scriptura is a repudiation of the very thing which provided you with that scripture. I call that irony.

[FredS]

Acceptance of Sola Scriptura is a repudiation of the very thing which provided you with that scripture. I call that irony.

Stop right there. The Holy Spirit provided scripture, not the Roman Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure that none of those who've decided to post here reject the Holy Spirit.

This place gets more ridiculous each day.

[Thunktank]

Lord have mercy.

[Kerdy]

Acceptance of Sola Scriptura is a repudiation of the very thing which provided you with that scripture. I call that irony.

Stop right there. The Holy Spirit provided scripture, not the Roman Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure that none of those who've decided to post here reject the Holy Spirit.

This place gets more ridiculous each day.

For sake of time and space, I will not enter into the philosophical aspect of where scripture originated, especially the Gospels, but what I will do is explain I am not Roman Catholic. I am a member of a church with no protest or reform, yet you dismiss Holy Tradition just as easily from us as you do from the Roman Catholics, which begs many questions.

It appears we have reached an impasse. There are two groups, those who accept the fullness of the Church Christ provided and those who adhere only to the parts which make them happy or feel good. I, for one, dismiss the Christianity of personality and am happy to embrace Christianity in it its fullness. Until Protestants stop protesting and see where they have made a great error, there will be no continued growth, as witnessed by the many actions of them today and their disintegration. America was built on Protestantism, and with its decline, so does America fall. Until they stop being angry at Rome and look past her mistakes and seek deeper past those mistakes, you will never fully understand. To be angry at Rome for those mistakes of the past is no different than black Americans being angry at whites for slavery and makes as little sense.

As for the topic of this thread, all I have seen is how we are all wrong and you are all right without ever providing the clarification Tuttle was seeking. One would think it would be easy to explain Sola Scriptura, but apparently, few can and none of those people are CPS members. Wikipedia; however, seems to be an acceptable place to start. For all of the hatred I see against Rome, she at least provides detailed explanations of her views, sometimes, too detailed. We have seen nothing similar from any protestant denomination on this thread.

I remember reading years ago a book called “Know What you Believe and Why You Believe It”. Many of you know what you believe, but have an extremely difficult time understanding why outside of, “It’s not Catholic.”

The question has been asked several times for someone to explain Sola Scriptura. The closest anyone has come is ignoring the phrases Latin roots and changing it to solO and saying that is wrong. Well, I agree, as that is not what Sola means. I am not certain what else I can provide to this thread. I hope everyone finds out why they subscribe to sola scriptura and can at least find a few other denominations who agree with your views of what it means. When you stop ignoring the truth of personal interpretation, you will begin to understand its flaw.

And to respond to your post Fred, I was speaking of Tradition, not Rome.

[tuttle]

As for the topic of this thread, all I have seen is how we are all wrong and you are all right without ever providing the clarification Tuttle was seeking. One would think it would be easy to explain Sola Scriptura, but apparently, few can and none of those people are CPS members. Wikipedia; however, seems to be an acceptable place to start. For all of the hatred I see against Rome, she at least provides detailed explanations of her views, sometimes, too detailed. We have seen nothing similar from any protestant denomination on this thread...

...The question has been asked several times for someone to explain Sola Scriptura. The closest anyone has come is ignoring the phrases Latin roots and changing it to solO and saying that is wrong. Well, I agree, as that is not what Sola means. I am not certain what else I can provide to this thread. I hope everyone finds out why they subscribe to sola scriptura and can at least find a few other denominations who agree with your views of what it means. When you stop ignoring the truth of personal interpretation, you will begin to understand its flaw.

Your rejection and continual misrepresentation of a subject that has been defined and clarified in some cases (even if it's from whereverthehell.com) is on you and not on those in this thread that have attempted such.

I am having a hard time believing that any definition or clarification would satisfy you unless it falls under your predetermined boundries of what you or others like you think it should mean.

I'm not saying you have to eat what we're putting on the table. I get it. You've had an allergic reaction to this before, but throwing the dish across the room everytime someone sets a new dish down is a bit ridiculous.

[dasmokeryaget]

But again, who gets to dictate which is good and which is bad tradition, you? This responsibility seems to lie within each denomination, the same denominations that all claim Sola Scriptura, but never agree with one another on what scripture is really saying. If you are unable to agree on scripture, it’s no wonder you can’t agree on Tradition.

Who gets to dictate which is good and which is bad tradtion within the Protestant Churches?

Other than the Mother church, which is not the authority on the matter.

[dasmokeryaget]

What I find most intriguing is Holy Tradition does not contradict Holy Scripture. The two support one another, yet people reject Tradition.

Not all tradition is Holy. Traditions such as described by Jesus below are not Holy. It is those traditions that we reject.



Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

You speak of tradition, not Tradition. Why is this so confusing?

God ordained traditions are holy and pharisaical traditions of men that make vain the doctrines of God are profane. It doesn't matter whether the word is capitalized or not.

[dasmokeryaget]

I believe that Sola Scriptura is a postion or concept that only exist as a refutation to the extra-Biblical doctrines and practices of Catholicism. It's misunderstood and at times taken to the far extreme, but it's an effective position.

I could be wrong.

Acceptance of Sola Scriptura is a repudiation of the very thing which provided you with that scripture. I call that irony.

If you mean the Mother Church, you're wrong. The mother church did not provide us with that scripture. That is a deception of the church.

[tuttle]

Tuttle and Fred: how do you judge which 'traditions' are good and which are bad? By what authority?

I would argue that Sola Fide, for instance, (which I define as a belief in justification by faith alone) is plainly contradicted by James. You interpret James differently. By what authority do you judge your interpretation to be 'right', and your tradition, therefore, to be 'good'?

EDIT: I note this not for the sake of starting a fight, but rather because I believe that it may shed some light on Sola Scriptura.

I don't know if this is the best way to put it (or even the right thread...because it could start some rabbit trails) but the Church before the Reformation is my Church too. That is, Protestantism was birthed (sadly or happily...neither here nor there right now) by the Catholic Church. It wasn't in a vacuum. So everything produced from the Catholic Church can't be rejected out of hand just because they are Catholic. That would be rejecting my own heritage. So the doctrine of the Trinity, Christ as God and Man, etc. Doctrines that are more fully fleshed out in tradition, I hold to. That said, these doctrines are undergirded by what is found in the Scriptures.

We could go back over the history of the Reformation, but let's just be quick about it and say that Luther (and others...he wasn't alone) sought to reform the Church. How best to reform a church with a corrupt hiearchy? (you no doubt have your own answer to this...) but Luther (and others in the Church) found a firm foundation in the Scriptures that the Church has always recognized as being the Word of God. He appealed to Scripture and the Church appealed to the traditions not undergirded by Scripture. Luther (and others in the Church) held fast to the rock of Scripture, thus Scripture was the answer to reforming the Church.

That's alot of quick history and reasoning that was played out on a much bigger stage than what i've let on (we all know this) but that's the gist. And I bring all that up (in a weird way to answer your question) to say that Protestants still recognize the authority of the Church. But the issue became a matter of submission. Who will submit to whom? Will the Church submit to the Word of God written down and recieved? Or ought the Scriptures submit to the Church in matters of authority? I use the term 'submit' in the cases where a submission is necessary. When there is a contradiction between Tradition and Scripture who has the ultimate authority to solve the problem? Scripture and Church should be walking hand in hand. From the protestant pov, obviously we hold that Scripture has the ultimate authority. The Church teaches what Scripture says and will fall in line with what Scripture says. Luther and folks held to Scripture and were kicked out of Roman Catholicism. Not convinced they were kicked out of the Church...

[tuttle]

Tuttle and Fred: how do you judge which 'traditions' are good and which are bad? By what authority?

I would argue that Sola Fide, for instance, (which I define as a belief in justification by faith alone) is plainly contradicted by James. You interpret James differently. By what authority do you judge your interpretation to be 'right', and your tradition, therefore, to be 'good'?

EDIT: I note this not for the sake of starting a fight, but rather because I believe that it may shed some light on Sola Scriptura.

bugger. I started talking about history but that leads to rambling. I didn't even address the James passage.

Do you argue that James contradicts justification by faith apart from works or does the RC Church argue that? (honest question...) If it's you then what's the point of bringing it up if you are refuting personal interpretation? But if it's the RC Church's understanding then I guess that's a point in which we could jump from...but I thought the Pope was down with justification by faith apart from works...

Paul’s experience of the Risen Lord on the road to Damascus led him to see that it is only by faith in Christ, and not by any merit of our own, that we are made righteous before God. Our justification in Christ is thus God’s gracious gift, revealed in the mystery of the Cross. Christ died in order to become our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption (cf. 1 Cor 1:30), and we in turn, justified by faith, have become in him the very righteousness of God (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). In the light of the Cross and its gifts of reconciliation and new life in the Spirit, Paul rejected a righteousness based on the Law and its works.

source: http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english

(yeah...this might need to go to another thread... )

[Pooka]

Just thought of another sort of way of looking at it. I'm sure this won't serve much to further the discussion, but I'll add yet another two bits:

Sola Scriptura says that what the church teaches must agree with the Bible. The church can't produce doctrine or practice that pours itself into the Bible.

That being said, then those things which are left open for discussion in the Bible must be dealt with by deliberation and consensus. That ends up with tradition.

Where we all fall apart here is in the first part. There are incongruous practices and teachings to be found all over the place. The Reformation was an event in response to the dirt that had been rubbed on Scripture. So were previous great events and those that have proceeded since.

But there have been bad episodes of reformation too. See the Revivalist pile-up a la Finney. And the old heretics.

[Kerdy]

As for the topic of this thread, all I have seen is how we are all wrong and you are all right without ever providing the clarification Tuttle was seeking. One would think it would be easy to explain Sola Scriptura, but apparently, few can and none of those people are CPS members. Wikipedia; however, seems to be an acceptable place to start. For all of the hatred I see against Rome, she at least provides detailed explanations of her views, sometimes, too detailed. We have seen nothing similar from any protestant denomination on this thread...

...The question has been asked several times for someone to explain Sola Scriptura. The closest anyone has come is ignoring the phrases Latin roots and changing it to solO and saying that is wrong. Well, I agree, as that is not what Sola means. I am not certain what else I can provide to this thread. I hope everyone finds out why they subscribe to sola scriptura and can at least find a few other denominations who agree with your views of what it means. When you stop ignoring the truth of personal interpretation, you will begin to understand its flaw.

Your rejection and continual misrepresentation of a subject that has been defined and clarified in some cases (even if it's from whereverthehell.com) is on you and not on those in this thread that have attempted such.

I am having a hard time believing that any definition or clarification would satisfy you unless it falls under your predetermined boundries of what you or others like you think it should mean.

I'm not saying you have to eat what we're putting on the table. I get it. You've had an allergic reaction to this before, but throwing the dish across the room everytime someone sets a new dish down is a bit ridiculous.

You must be thinking of someone else. I have been Orthodox for less than two years. I also know exactly what Sola Scriptura is as I previously explained my background, unless you think being a Baptist minister disqualified me from understanding Protestantism. I misrepresent nothing and have seen several explainations all of which differ. Coincidentally, very little from you. It's easy to say I am wrong, the difficult part has been showing how.

[Kerdy]

But again, who gets to dictate which is good and which is bad tradition, you? This responsibility seems to lie within each denomination, the same denominations that all claim Sola Scriptura, but never agree with one another on what scripture is really saying. If you are unable to agree on scripture, it’s no wonder you can’t agree on Tradition.

Who gets to dictate which is good and which is bad tradtion within the Protestant Churches?

Other than the Mother church, which is not the authority on the matter.

Did you provide an answer? I do not understand your point here.