Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

So how many Bodies does Christ have?

 

Except that a mere cursory glance around these boards quite clearly demonstrates that Scripture is anything but final and all sufficient.

 

I get that question all the time, usually an immediate response to the former post. My reply: How many Christs are there. I suppose I am the only Christian in the world because I know he dwells in me. Does he dwell in you? You are inferring that he can't if he dwells in me. There is only one Christ, you know. Your logic obviously falls apart.

 

sola scriptura goes right along with soul liberty--the right to believe what I believe the Bible teaches as I use the Bible as my final authority.

 

There is one Christ, therefore there is only One Body. It's quite logical.

 

...resulting in epistemological chaos. Riiiight..... Everyone's his own Pope, then.

 

And I grew up Catholic where evil men tossed away the truths of the Bible, and taught the doctrines of men rather than the doctrines of God. Their ungodly superstitions lead men to hell, as they themselves are headed--the blind leading the blind.
Thank God someone from without shared the gospel with me before it was too late. Their "Tradition" condemns people to hell.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: (Matthew 7:13)

 

Let me put it this way. 54 years ago I took a course in calculus. As far as I know, the text was inerrant, without error. I "believed" and "believed in" the text but still flunked. In the same way, an inerrant Bible is pragmatically useless or at least limited without an inerrant interpretation. 90% of the arguing on this forum are about interpretations of the text. In some way, the text is insufficient to understand the material it contains same as my calc text might have been.

The CRC Handbook Of Chemistry was first published in 1914. By 1958 the CRC math tables were well vetted and were universally assumed to be inerrant by the people who used them. Far as I know, they were. No one ever argued over the accuracy of the tables or their purpose (meaning). By any reasonable standard, the CRC math tables were at least as inerrant as the Bible and at least as useful for the task for which they were written.

 

Here is an excellent article by my friend RC Sproul in which he explains and defends sola scriptura ---

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_sola_sproul.html

However, I really like his closing which I have copied here, in which he shows some grace to those that disagree with him ---

"We are concerned about Sola Scriptura for many reasons. But we affirm it in the final analysis not because it was the view of the Reformers, not because we slavishly revere Hodge and Warfield, not even because we are afraid of dominoes or a difficult apologetic. We defend it and express our deep concern about it because we believe it is the truth. It is a truth we do not want to negotiate. We earnestly desire dialogue with our evangelical brothers and colaborers who differ from us. We want to heal the wounds that controversy so frequently brings. We know our own views are by no means inerrant. But we believe inerrancy is true and is of vital importance to our common cause of the gospel.

Further dialogue within the evangelical world should at least help us clarify what real differences there are among us. Such clarification is important if there is to be any hope of resolving those differences. We do not intend to communicate that a person's Christian faith stands or falls with his view of Scripture. We do not question the Christian commitment of advocates of limited inerrancy. What we do question is the correctness of their doctrine of Scripture, as they question ours. But we consider this debate, as serious as it is, a debate between members of the household of God. May our Father bring us to unity here as he has in many glorious affirmations of his gospel."

 

And since when did "Tradition" condemn anyone to hell? Don't blame anyone's condemnation on anything but themselves. Besides - final judgement belongs to Jesus.

WM

 

Excellent quote! Thanks for sharing.

 

Since when? Since Jesus and other writers of the Sacred Scriptures said so!

And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, (Galatians 1:14-15)

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:3)
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:9)
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:13)

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. (Colossians 2:8)

 

:thumbsup:

 

Ooh, a proof-text battle of NT texts with paradoseis! Ok, I'm game:

I Cor 11:2: I praise you for remembering me in everything, and for holding on to the teachings, just as I passed them on toyou.

I Cor 11:23: For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...

2 Thess 2:15: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

So tell me, which of these traditions condemn men to Hell?

 

He didn't pass on any tradition on to them, as in the current usage of the word. What he passed on to them was doctrine--the teaching of the Word of God.

In each and every case cited it refers to the doctrine and practices of the Word of God.
The RCC encyclopedia states that tradition, whether oral or written is that collected information gathered over centuries of time that is passed on from one generation to another.
You made two quotes from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. Consider: Paul just got saved on the road to Damascus, well after Pentecost, the beginning of the Church Age, which was about 30 A.D. Let's say he got saved within three years of that time. Even from the year 30 A.D. itself, 1Cor. was written in 55 A.D.!! How much "tradition" do you think that Paul has collected in the 25 years Christianity has been in existence. Your position is ridiculous here, as it holds no water with those, as the RCC, who define tradition as information gathered over centuries--not just 25 years.
The tradition that Paul speaks of is simply the truth of the Word of God. Context defines the word.

 

that is the same thing as tradition. You've just defined Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition is doctrine and how certain scriptures are to always be understood. Apostolic Tradition has always held to the virgin birth, the incarnation, etc... to depart from these teachings is to depart not from scripture so much as Apostolic Tradition. Tradition in the modern sense isn't what the RCC, Orthodox, or even Anglican churchs claim Tradition is but in the sence of doctrine passed down from the apostles. But the Doctrine and teachings of the Apostles passed down and consistently observed. Ritual is a different sort of tradition known as a small t tradition.

 

Not a chance, DHK! It is by these people's actions (by keeping their own tradition and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men) that they might be condemned - thus, clearly the transgression is their ACTION and NOT the traditions themselves. We have free will to sin and disobey or not to sin and obey. To interpret those verses to say that a “thing” condemns anyone is patently ridiculous. Unless of course one is an uber-anti-Catholic basher – in which case it makes perfect sense.

Besides, I believe that we Baptists have a few traditions of men ourselves. Hmmm... Let's see - alter calls, dinner on the ground, revivals, Christmas contotas, the structure of the Sunday worhsip service, Wednesday night prayer meetings, etc. By your disdain of the traditions of men, you might want to re-examine your own beliefs and your clear intollerance of those whose "traditions" differ from your own.

WM

 

Er...which is Apostolic Tradition. You clearly misunderstand the term. Hopefully now you will begin to know what it is.

Quite a bit, I suspect, given that he had met with the other Apostles and learned teaching from them. In any case, I was demonstrating the principle that the precedent for Tradition is right there in Scripture (by which you claim to set so much store) under your nose; I trust you're not so blind by your dislike of all things Catholic to see the truth of that.

I rather fear that it is you, like Humpty Dumpty, who is defining the word.

 

You have shown here you do not know what "Sola Scripture" means.