Sola Scriptura

[PaladinGirl]

What is the Biblical and logical basis for believing in sola scriptura?

[NewGuy101]

The fact that it's God's word?

[PaladinGirl]

The fact that it's God's word?
There has to be more to it than that. See my thread in General Theology. I just wonder why we shouldn't use sacred tradition as well. :confused:

[NewGuy101]

There has to be more to it than that. See my thread in General Theology. I just wonder why we shouldn't use sacred tradition as well. :confused:
Because its not in God's word? Catholics Claim apostolic succession problem is that it's not based on any reliable source of truth.

It's really that simple.

[PaladinGirl]

Because its not in God's word? Catholics Claim apostolic succession problem is that it's not based on any reliable source of truth.

It's really that simple.
Ok, good enough. But what about the following verses?

2Th 2:15 ESV So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Joh 21:25 ESV Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

[NewGuy101]

Ok, good enough. But what about the following verses?

2Th 2:15 ESV So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
This is speaking of the Gospel. Not of holy tradition with an infalliable pope.

Joh 21:25 ESV Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. If you want to rationlize everything that Jesus didn't say, you can come to a million conclusions.

[DeaconDean]

There has to be more to it than that. See my thread in General Theology. I just wonder why we shouldn't use sacred tradition as well. :confused:

Let me put it this way.

Gather 25 friends. Have them form a circle.

Tell the first person a secret, then have them tell it to the person beside them, and so on, and so on. When the last person has heard the secret, have them tell out loud, what they were told.

I'll bet you a dollar to a hole in a donut, that it will be different.

Hold long would it take for "word of mouth" as "sacred tradition" gets passed from one person to the next, to get in error?

Whereas we are faulted for following the Bible, the same can be said of others who follow after the writtings of the ECF's, and others.

At least we can say that our scripture was "inspired" or "God-Breathed." (2 Tim. 3:16)

Personally, I'd rather err on the part of scripture than that of men.

266 "men" passing one tradtion down to another. What are the chances that somewhere down the line, one thing may, I'm not saying they did, but may have been quoted wrongly. If that could happen to one part, why couldn't it happen to another?

However if your "tradition" calls for following after the "traditions of men" (cf. 2 Thes. 2:15) well then I say God Bless you and your convictions.

As you have yours, I have mine. And I'd rather trust the Bible over "men" anytime.

Now I have addressed the portion of scripture (2 Thes. 2:15) with another "Catholic" member in the past.

If you want, I could "dig" my response up and give it to you to show how that is wrong also as holding to "the tradtions of men."

God Bless

Till all are one.

[PaladinGirl]

Let me put it this way.

Gather 25 friends. Have them form a circle.

Tell the first person a secret, then have them tell it to the person beside them, and so on, and so on. When the last person has heard the secret, have them tell out loud, what they were told.

I'll bet you a dollar to a hole in a donut, that it will be different.

Hold long would it take for "word of mouth" as "sacred tradition" gets passed from one person to the next, to get in error?

Whereas we are faulted for following the Bible, the same can be said of others who follow after the writtings of the ECF's, and others.

At least we can say that our scripture was "inspired" or "God-Breathed." (2 Tim. 3:16)

Personally, I'd rather err on the part of scripture than that of men.

266 "men" passing one tradtion down to another. What are the chances that somewhere down the line, one thing may, I'm not saying they did, but may have been quoted wrongly. If that could happen to one part, why couldn't it happen to another?

However if your "tradition" calls for following after the "traditions of men" (cf. 2 Thes. 2:15) well then I say God Bless you and your convictions.

As you have yours, I have mine. And I'd rather trust the Bible over "men" anytime.

Now I have addressed the portion of scripture (2 Thes. 2:15) with another "Catholic" member in the past.

If you want, I could "dig" my response up and give it to you to show how that is wrong also as holding to "the tradtions of men."

God Bless

Till all are one.
It would be helpful to hear your response on 2 Thessalonians 2:15. :thumbsup: However, I must say that you pretty much already have me convinced of the truth of sola scriptura by what you have said in this post. I never really thought of it that way. Thank you. :thumbsup:

[PaladinGirl]

This is speaking of the Gospel. Not of holy tradition with an infalliable pope.

If you want to rationlize everything that Jesus didn't say, you can come to a million conclusions.
I understand what you are saying about the 2nd verse but I am confused as to what you are saying about the 1st verse. How is it speaking of the Gospel? :confused:

[DeaconDean]

It would be helpful to hear your response on 2 Thessalonians 2:15. :thumbsup: However, I must say that you pretty much already have me convinced of the truth of sola scriptura by what you have said in this post. I never really thought of it that way. Thank you. :thumbsup:

Now please don't misunderstand me. i read your blog and I know your a little inbetween on your decision towards Catholicism and something else. But if you feel obligated to continue down the path in Catholicism, I hope you are blessed in your decision.

But Catholic history holds that there have been 266 "Popes" (265 not counting Peter) since the first century.

How long would it take spreading "tradtion" by word of mouth, from one Pope to the next, before what was really said in the first place is mixed up or in error.

I'll dig up my discussion on 2 Thes. 2:15 and post it later.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

[PaladinGirl]

Now please don't misunderstand me. i read your blog and I know your a little inbetween on your decision towards Catholicism and something else. But if you feel obligated to continue down the path in Catholicism, I hope you are blessed in your decision.

But Catholic history holds that there have been 266 "Popes" (265 not counting Peter) since the first century.

How long would it take spreading "tradtion" by word of mouth, from one Pope to the next, before what was really said in the first place is mixed up or in error.

I'll dig up my discussion on 2 Thes. 2:15 and post it later.

God Bless

TIll all are one.
I see your point. It is a very good one by the way. That is one reason why I am finding myself embracing sola scriptura now. :)

[DeaconDean]

Ok Sister, here is the Greek text of 2 Thes. 2:15:

"ara oun, adelfoi, sthkete, kai krateite taV paradoseiV aV edidacqhte eite dia logou eite di epistolhV hmwn."

In the above text, two words we shall look at more so than the others.

The Greek word: "eite" is of particular importance.

The King James translators rendered this word "whether."

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." -2 Thes. 2:15 (KJV)

And it does, to a certain extent. But according to Strongs Concordance, and The New Greek Analytical Lexicon, it also means "if."

The New Testament Greek Lexicon
eite Original Word
Word Origin eite from (1487 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1487)) and (5037 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5037))
Transliterated Eite
WordPhonetic Spelling Eite i'-teh Parts of Speech TDNT Conjunction None
Definition

if ... if
whether ... orhttp://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1535 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1535)

Now, lets disect the Greek here.

Have you ever heard of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Gerhard Kittel? I have this set of books in my personal collection. They were a gift from a friend to further my seminary studies. After our conversation of the previous night, I went and pulled my set of books and checked just to be sure that I wasn’t giving you the wrong information. Well for your own personal information, in Volume II, page 146, Prof. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, writes the passage concerning the Greek word: “didaskw.”

“didaskw”
Section 3: The didaskein of Early Christianity:

“…In a setting where scripture was not known, “didaskein ta peri tou Insou” would be out of place, just as it was very much in place in the early community and in dealings with the Jews. Thus Paul speaks of “didaskein” only with reference to his own instruction of the communities at the time of their foundation (2 Th. 2:15; Col. 2:7; Eph. 4:21)[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftn1) and in the sense of an internal function of Christianity. Even for Gentile congregations proof from scripture was an indispensable weapon against the attacks of Jews, as shown by the history of the Galatian church; and it had thus to be given by the apostles. On the other hand, it seems to have had no part in the churches themselves. When Paul in Rom. 12:7 summons the “didaskwn” to serve “en th didaskalia” of the community, he is not thinking of men who apply the scriptures to Jesus, but of those who give from scripture directions for Christian living,[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftn2) and h admonishes them to place their better knowledge wholly in the service of the congregation.”

On page 172, concerning “paradosiV" (tradition) Prof. Friedrich Buchsel writes:
paradosiV

“In the NT this means “tradition” only in the sense of what is transmitted, not of transmission. In this sense, it does not occur in the LXX, but is found in Philo and Josephus and in Greek generally, though less common than in the other sense.

In the disputation in Mk. 7 (Mt. 15), Jesus calls Jewish tradition outside the Law the “paradosiV twn presbutepwn,Mk. 7:3,5 (Mt. 15:2). He also speaks of the paradosiV twn anqrwpwnin Mk. 7:8 or umwn in v. 9, Mt. 15:3,6…The Pharisees regarded unwritten tradition as no less binding than the Law. Even Philo claimed piety for such tradition. The Sadducees rejected it. So did Jesus. He agreed with the Pharisees that the good demanded obedience to God’s commandment. As He saw it, however, men could not add to this commandment, since they were too seriously in conflict with God. Jesus did not argue for freedom in attacking tradition. His service of God, however, was not legalistic, and therefore He would not add to the commands of God. In Gal. 1:14 the paradoseiV are Jewish tradition generally, both written and verbal.For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15; 3:6; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1-11), and he demands that the churches should keep it, since salvation depends on it (1 Cor. 15:2). He sees no antithesis between pneumatic piety and the high estimation of tradition.[3] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftn3) The essential point for Paul is that it has been handed down (1 Cor. 15:3), and that it derives from the Lord (11:23). A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8). [emphasis mine] It is no contradiction that Jesus repudiates tradition and Paul champions it. Paul’s tradition agrees with that Jesus’ rejection, since they both are opposed to human tradition. Paul’s use of paradosiVand paradounai rests on the Jewish usage, and agrees with that of the Mysteries to the extent that this agrees with Jewish usage. On

[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftnref1) The last passage is put here because that edidacqhte and the accompanying hkousate point to a mediation of the knowledge that alhqeia is en tw Insou, this being the basis of the obligation to walk in purity.

[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftnref2) The context demands an interpretation of didaskein in relation to the up building of the life of the community rather than its faith.

[3] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftnref3) F. Buchsel, Der Geist Gottes im NT (1926), 275 ff.




Continued...

[DeaconDean]

Continued from above:



the other hand, Paul does not recognize the sacraments as objects of paradounai and paradosiV.[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftn1) In the days of Paul tradition is in the process of acquiring a fixed verbal form.[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftn2) In 1 Cor. 15:3 ff. we have a fairly settled christological formula, as also in 1 Cor. 11:23 ff. The same cannot be said, however, of other passages like the lists of vices. The paradosiV of 1 Cor. 15:3ff. is older than Paul and rests on the Jerusalem tradition, even if it does not originate in Jerusalem. The same is probably true of 1 Cor. 11:23ff.; the apo tou kupiou implies that the Lord’s Supper, its celebration and the appropriate words come from the Lord, not that Paul received the formula in visionary instruction by the ascended Lord.” In Volume III, p. 911-912, Prof. Wilhelm Michaelis writes concering:

kpatew
“…The point in Rev. 2:25; 3:11 is holding on to a possession. The idea of holding a view, of taking ones stand on it, is found in connection with didach in Rev. 2:14f., though with paradosiV at Mk. 7:3-4, 8 and 2 Th. 2:15 the sense is more than that of keeping or following a tradition, cf. Heb. 4:14: kratwmen thV omolgiaV (hold fast), whereas the sense in Heb. 6:18: kpathoai ths prokei,enhV, is more “to grasp.”

In Volume IV, on pages 101-102, Gerhard Kittel writes:

legw

“…Along with negative estimation we should mention the many occurrences in which there is no judgment. The account of something, whether spoken by Jesus, the disciples, or another, refers to “these words” (Mt. 7:28; Ac. 2:22; 16:36). Or collectively “this word” (Mk. 7:29;10:22), or “many words” (Lk. 23:9). Paul distinguishes between a letter and the spoken word (logoV, 2 Th. 2:2, 15; 2 Cor. 10:10; cf. Ac. 15:27), though even in the same sentence (2 Cor. 10:11) he can call a letter the bearer and reproduction of the logoV (2 Th. 3:14; cf. Heb. 5:11; 13:22). An address (Ac. 2:41; 20:7), an account (Ac. 11:22), a rumor (Lk. 5:15; 7:17), can all be called logoV, and the partial record embodied in a book (Ac. 1:1)…It is obvious that the main emphasis of the term is always on saying something. This is why there is such a wide range of possibilities and such a notable vacillation in sense. The word can contain gnwsiV or true sojia (1 Cor. 12:8). It can also be opposed to them(2 Cor. 11:6). Or it can be set along side them (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 8:7). In the same way word or act, or word and power, can be mutually exclusive ( 1 Th. 1:5; 1 Cor. 4:19 f.), or complementary (Lk. 24:19; Rom. 15:18; 2 Th. 2:17; Col. 3:17). The emphasis of the sentence will decide whether the word intended is empty sound or whether it carries within it a content which impels towards and necessitates action. This multiplicity of possibilities can express anything said or spoken; it may embrace any content of words.

Finally, in Volume VII, pp. 637-638, Gunther Harder, writes:

sthkw

Paul uses the verb mostly in the imperative form sthkete, so that the question arises whether it is for him imperative for esthka ”to stand” as distinct from sthte ”approach.” …Hence Paul can also give the admonition: sthkete en kupiw Phil 4:1. “To stand in faith” is “to stand in the Lord,” for faith looks to

[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftnref1) We have only partial knowledge of the use of paradounai and paradosiVin the Mysteries. It can be shown that teleth and muothpion (and therefore things of a sacramental nature) were objects paradounai and paradosiV(cf. Ranft., 181-185). Teaching occurs less frequently, cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 290 f.

[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftnref2) A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristeneit (1903); P. Feine, Die Gestalt des apost. Glaubenkensbekenntnisses im NT (1925)

Continued...

[DeaconDean]

Continued from above:

Lord and unites with Him. The choice of kurioV shows that the one who stands in Him is determined by Him and receives from Him the standing which is given to him as faith by God’s saving work in Jesus Christ; he now has to listen to the Lord and follow Him. sthkete en kuriw might thus be translated: “Stand in obedience to the Lord” 1 Th. 3:7f. shows plainly that the comforted life and work of Paul and his companions depend on this standing in the Lord…Because the Lord gives freedom from the destructive powers of sin, law, and death, because faith in the promise of the Word grasps and attains this freedom, the Galatians are admonished: eh eleuqeria huaV CpistoV hleuqepwsen: sthkete oun kai palin zugw douleiaV enecesqhte,. All these connections must be taken into account when we read in 2 Th. 2:15: sthkete kai kpateite taV paradoseiV aV edidacqhte,”

In other words:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast (in the faith of the Lord), and hold on to (lay grasp of) the traditions (scriptures) which ye have been taught (through the teaching of Paul), whether by word (again Paul’s spoken teachings (scriptures)), or (whether) by our (written) epistle. –2 Th. 2:15


Paul was admonishing them to stand fast in their faith in the Lord that they had been taught by him whether it is in the words of scripture or in the letter (epistle). It made no difference for both were equal...Paul gave the church at Thessalonica the option of standing fast in the faith of the Lord by using either his teaching from scriptures (words) or by using the epistle he wrote. And since we don’t have his words other than what is recorded in the Bible, that is what we are to follow now, his epistle or written word. And in light of what is said about Paul’s view of the traditions of men and: “A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8) (Kittel’s, Vol. II, p. 172) For here we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” So I doubt very highly that the tradition Paul thought of and spoke of, and the tradition that the "Catholic" church esteem so very much, are one in the same.

All reference work herein are from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” By: Gerhard Kittel, Editor; Translated by: Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 2006; Volumes II, pp. 146, 172; III, pp.911-912; IV, pp.101-102; VII, pp. 637-638.

In the 2000 years since Jesus graced our presence, and in light that there have been 265 "Popes" since then, it very highly likely that somewhere down the line, part of the "tradition" could have been passed along in error.

However, we have God's own word that the words scribed by the prophets and the apostles are actually God's word. (cf 2 Tim. 3:16)

Since we do not have Paul's exact words he preached and taught to the church at Thessalonica, we can't be certain of exactly what he said. However, we do have his written word as recorded in the Bible. And since we can't be sure of his exact "spoken" word, we have to rely on his "written" words.

Anyhow, that is how I see it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

Something else to consider.

The church at Thessalonica passed into history sometime around AD 143. We have no records of what was actually taught there.

Another reason not to follow after the "paradosiV twn anqrwpwn" "the traditions of men."

A.A. Hodge points out:

By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.

2nd. It is improbable a priori that God would supplement Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be shown below is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below, the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately upon tradition.

3rd The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions.

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown below.

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the final judge of controversies be established?

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts:

1st. Scripture is perspicuous.

2nd. Scripture is addressed to all Christians.

3rd. All Christians are commanded to search the scriptures, and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.--John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1,2.

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:47-49; 1 John 2:20,27; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17.

5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it "purify the heart." Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.--John 17:17, 19; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:22.


http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm

God Bless

Till all are one.

[ImmersionX]

Let's just say that I was born and raised a Roman Catholic...yet now I am Baptist, have been for years. You will be blessed whichever path you choose PaladinGirl...feel free to PM me if you have any questions regarding such things.

Peace.

[eldermike]

There has to be more to it than that. See my thread in General Theology. I just wonder why we shouldn't use sacred tradition as well. :confused:
The bible says there is nothing sacred but God.
None are Holy, not one. How can tradition be sacred if it's not biblical? Or, how can the bible be true if something other than Gods own words are Holy?

The problem with the bible is, it leaves no room for additional stuff. It says it complete, it says it's true, it says all men are liars and God alone is truth.

You face a decision when you read the bible. If you believe it, you are done looking for truth. To add anything to it, is unbelief IMHO.

[PaladinGirl]

Let's just say that I was born and raised a Roman Catholic...yet now I am Baptist, have been for years. You will be blessed whichever path you choose PaladinGirl...feel free to PM me if you have any questions regarding such things.

Peace.

Ok thank you for the offer ImmersionX. :)

The bible says there is nothing sacred but God.
None are Holy, not one. How can tradition be sacred if it's not biblical? Or, how can the bible be true if something other than Gods own words are Holy?

The problem with the bible is, it leaves no room for additional stuff. It says it complete, it says it's true, it says all men are liars and God alone is truth.

You face a decision when you read the bible. If you believe it, you are done looking for truth. To add anything to it, is unbelief IMHO.

Thank you for this point of view ElderMike. It really helps. :thumbsup:

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

Interesting stuff DeaconDean, thanks for taking the time!

[PaladinGirl]

Interesting stuff DeaconDean, thanks for taking the time!
Yes, thanks for taking the time to dig that up for me DeaconDean. :)