How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

When one discusses Sola Scriptura with opponents; inevitably it breaks down just like it has. The Bible verses given provide ample support for this view. The opponents appeals to the Protestant divisions and instead point to the vague and undefined "tradition".
Because the people on THIS forum appear to be Orthodox or Anglican, two groups I do not usually engage, one has a small net presence and the other is pummeling itself without me, I am curious what tradition (s) you are appealing to. I am also curious and perhaps this is easier to answer; what authoratative body or set of writings can one go to and find which traditions are considered infallible; ie on the same par as those of us who adhere to an infallible Bible.
Thanks

 

I am not Orthodox, Catholic, or Anglican. I go to a SBC. I have for years. I have not noticed that any post on this thread ever claimed that the bible is not the word of God. Now there may be some disagreements about what you mean when you say infallible. But nobody on this thread will say that the bible says anything other than what God wanted to say. The orthodox christian faiths (all three above) looks at tradition in two ways. Faithful apostolic transmition. and that a living commentary ( my words not theirs) on the meaning of scriptures. They believe that the oral tradition comes first and that the scriptures are born out of the church by the power and inspiration of God not the other way around. And when you look at it chronologically they've got a point.

 

So are there any traditions not found in scripture or traditions that illuminate a proper understanding of scripture that are particularly important to you specifically. I do not know the players and am compiling a program to better contribute to the conversation.

 

Yes. That Jesus is Homoosious with the Father and the Spirit. That the three are Hypostasis that exist together (not one at a time) but three persons that does not contradict the oneness of God. This is one tradition I hold to that illuminates my understanding of the scripture thanks to the first two ecuminical councils.

 

Sure. Do you believe those councils to be infallible? Do you believe their understanding and scriptural interpretation are the result of knowledge based on by the Apostles?
Still clarifying. So far you sound...like a normal Baptist to me. But I do not run in these crowds traditionally.

 

It is clear. You simply don't accept it because you have decided to be your own pope. You are demonstrating a weakness with the language here. There is no reasonable basis for your rejection given the language that Scripture uses.

Again, I repeat, if Scripture equips us for "every good work" that means that there is no good work for which Scripture does not equip us. Therefore, Scripture is sufficient.

Yes, compared to differences with other denominations (known as denominational distinctives) that is a relatively minor issue since both agree that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. There are some issues in which Baptists are closer to others than to each other, but not in baptist distinctives.

Obviously (though I suppose I should never leave out the obvious because someone will miss it). But this again proves my point. The point is not whether I or you or anyone else is wrong. The authority is still the authority, even if we are wrong. And that is the issue you won't address.

 

Great point and I can show hundreds of groups who adhere to tradition and scripture who disagree about matters as well. So on a practical level, since there was a reference to differing Protestant denominations, one clearly sees that even those who appeal to tradition; differ. They will say they do not differ AS much and contend that the degree speaks to the truth of the authority. In other words, we know we (those who appeal to a three legged stool of authority if you will) are more correct because we perceive we do not differ as much as you do. An interesting presupposition that any group can actually make if one cares to approach it from that perspective.
And a link about a SLEW of groups that appeal to tradition and scripture

http://www.ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html

 

First it's important to understand that there's a difference between big "T" Traditions and small "t" traditions. Big "T" Traditions is a tool by which the Church, in my case, the Orthodox Church, has determined correct Christian teaching. Tradition big "T", is determined by 3 elements.
1) Antiquity (what has been believed from the very beginning)
2) Universality (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere)
3) Consensus (what has agreed to be Orthodoxy, especially by the Church Councils, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church)

Small "t" traditions are what we've all grown up in...Baptist traditions, Methodist traditions and some of these traditions find themselves comfortable within the big "T" Traditions. Small "t" traditions can develop and change...as an Orthodox Christian, that can be dress of the clergy, sign of the cross...ect.

Again the Church will use the above 3 elements to determine correct teaching. You will find Tradition in the writings of the Apostolic Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Doctors and Desert Fathers, the Creed, Canons of the Church, Liturgy...ect .

Some fathers didn't pass the test and were determined heretical. Example: Arius, he made a completely biblical argument of Jesus being a created being, his argument wasn't flawed by the lack of Scripture, but a faulty interpretation of Scripture and he failed the test above and was thus deemed a heretic in regard to his teaching.

Look at Calvinism...it's not unbiblical, its just an interpretation of Scripture that simply not found as Orthodox in Church history. The Apostles and the Church Fathers as a whole, never interpreted Scripture this way.

Now, big "T" Tradition is also referred to as "Holy Tradition" which is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. As Vladimir Lossky has famously described Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of Tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.

One of the distinctive characteristics of the Holy Orthodox Church is its changelessness, its loyalty to the past, its sense of living continuity with the ancient Church.

To an Orthodox Christian, Tradition means the Holy Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service Books, the Holy Icons, etc. In essence, it means the whole system of doctrine, ecclesiastical government, worship and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages [Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p.204].

We take special note that for the Orthodox, the Holy Bible forms apart of Holy Tradition, but does not lie outside of it. One would be in error to suppose that Scripture and Tradition are two separate and distinct sources of Christian Faith, as some do, since there is, in reality, only one source; and the Holy Bible exists and found its formulation within Tradition.

And don't think that those of us that are Roman Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox who speak against sola scriptura are speaking against Scripture. That's not the case, we each hold Scripture in the highest regard. As an Orthodox Christian myself, I attend Sunday school, my kids attend Sunday school, we have Bible studies twice a week, catechesis classes and Vespers every evening and we are encouraged to read Scripture and develop a healthy prayer rule.

This by now means is an exhaustive explanation, but maybe enough to begin an understanding.

In XC
-

 

Thank you for your very complete answer. As you can imagine on a Baptist Board, even the other section if you will, bound to be several who differ. One difficulty, and I have read enought threads to understand your viewpoints on Catholicism to a degree, is that the majority of time I engage in Apologetic discussions with Catholics. While I have certainly discussed Orthodoxy and read some books, specifcially upon Peterine Primacy, it is a rather an uncharted area. I suppose it is also problematic. One interesting and handy feature of engaging in discussions with Catholics is the availability of the Catechism. Perhaps we should address antiquity. Antiquity, specifically if it goes back to the Apostles, would be easy to discuss based upon the available sources. This however would be rife with danger. Lets take Icons and the veneration of them for example. We know based upon the Ante-Nicene fathers that we have no early Christians who directly advocate the use of images. Justyn Martyr etc. One difficulty is that opponents will contend he is only referring to Pagan images in his warnings. I do not disagree with that based upon my belief that images were not used in early worship.
So back to antiquity, we know that there are images on catacombs starting in the 2nd or 3rd century. Of course most lay apologists are used to thinking those were first century items; a point that usually is conceded with a general overview of scholarly, not usually net based, books on the subject.
If even one grants that pictures did exist within 150 years of the Apostles, we do not have evidence of veneration.
What we do have, especially found in Eusebius, are statments that would lead us to the exact opposite conclusion.
I am curious if based upon your research, if you have patristic comments that advocate using images to venerate icons that you believe are traceable to the Apostolic age.
Thanks for your reply; if you care to. It has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura specifically but everything to do with the perils of tradition versus scripture I believe

 

Agnus Dei said:

What do you mean by "the deposit of faith" passed on "from one generation to the next?" This is where I have a problem with this view. Whatever God wanted passed on to us He orchestrated to be written in His word. Whatever was oral that we needed to know was put into the canon of scripture. Oral teachings that did not get into the canon are not necessary to know and there is no authority for such claimed oral teachings.

I agree with BrianH's poins: many traditions, such as the veneration of icons, are not biblically supported. Other teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, were not taught until much later -- the assumption of Mary was "revealed" around 1950. There is nothing in the Bible about this. One has to accept extrabliblical authority to accept this -- that of the Pope's declaration that this assumption was true.

Some teachings and traditions are biblical but not on a par with the bible and are not authoritative.

 

Hi Emily,
I was a Catholic for 20 years. I grew up with "Christianity," or so I thought. I was devout, learned all about God, Christ, the trinity, and the basics of Christianity, and some of the things that I now know are not so Christian. When I was 20 a young man at the university I went to me explained the gospel to me. It was the first time I had ever heard that message. In 20 years I never heard the gospel message in the Catholic Church. On that day I got saved.
It took two years for me to completely leave the Catholic Church, but once I did there was no looking back. The Bible has been my authority ever since, and more and more I see how wrong the Catholic Church has been, and how they go on deceiving others.

The RCC believes in a "covenant theology" like the Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox and some others, even some Baptists. As I study the Bible I see that God made covenants with Israel, not with Gentiles. We, Christians, the bride of Christ, are heirs of God, joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, and share in the blessings of the covenantal promises made to Israel.
But baptism does not replace circumcision.
And because one is born into the nation of Israel and then circumcised, accordingly does not mean that in this age:
One can be born into a "Christian" family and be baptized as such.
If that were the picture, it wouldn't be very good for you, for only the males were circumcised. Then should only the males be baptized, to make the picture complete? One cannot be born a Christian.

When I was 20 I made a decision and I was born again. I wasn't born a Christian, but had to be born again, that is born into the family of God.
I had to make the choice to choose Christ as my Saviour by faith. He paid the penalty for my sin. It was a penalty that I was unable to pay. He satisfied the demands of God as He died on the cross and shed his blood. God accepted that as payment for my sin. And I trust in Him to save me as He promised on the basis of that sacrificial death. He died once, and once for all. Now He is risen from the dead and lives that we also might live.

But he doesn't live in baptism; in a communion wafer, in any kind of religious rite. He condemns the formal ritualism of the Pharisees.

Here is what John says about Christ:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Christ, the Word, came and lived among us.
He still lives today.
He, today, reveals Himself through His Word.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

Thinkingstuff...

Why on earth would you need "tradition" and "ecumenical councils" to teach you that....when that is taught in the scriptures?



Mike

 

Well, here again is...YET...EVEN...MORE...scriptural support for Gods doctrine of "Sola Scriptura"....to be ignored by those who can not see:

Exceeded character limit. Continued next post...








Mike

 

Continued...

http://www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm


Mike

 

...which leaves us where, theologically? What's the point? What's the use?

 

Hi Brian. An Anglican chiming in here. I would say the corpus of teaching of the Undivided Church prior to 1054, including the Bible, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds and other parts of Sacred Tradition prior to that date.

 

For what, exactly? It says "every good work", not "every doctrine", nor "every practice".

Hardly: they are putting forward two diametrically opposed views of God!

Same question to you as Amy by way of addressing the issue: what's the point? If no-one can agree on the interpretation, the authority (and I accept that Scripture does indeed have authority) is useless. That surely can't be what the Lord had in mind when He promised that the Holy Spirit would teach us all things (John 14:26), can it? There must be some other way. And there is...

 

Mike, I only have time to address one of CARM's points, but the one which leaps out at me is this:

Surely this point demonstrates the unadequacy of SS rather than the other way round as CARM would like? They are admitting that many doctrines are not clearly stated in the Bible yet they are taught by The Church ie: they are impliedly accepting the principle of Tradition.

 

Brian and Pastor Larry, by way I hope of further addressing your questions, here's something I wrote earlier (to my Exclusive Brethren in-laws):