Sola Scriptura

some would argue all doctrinal dispute are major and to claim some are minor is just an attempt to downplay it's significance.

The issue of tradition is also a doctrinal dispute.

We have several examples referring to Oral Tradition.

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.


Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-16 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

Here is a cute dialog:

Angel: Mr. Salza, your reliance upon tradition to prove Catholic teaching is unbiblical. No where does it say tradition is inspired by God.

J. Salza: This statement assumes that "it" (you presumably mean the Bible) has to say something in order for that something to be true. But the Bible does not say that everything necessary for salvation comes from the Bible. This fact is irrefutable.

Angel: Notice, it says 'All Scripture" and does not say "All Scripture and Tradition."

J. Salza: First, your conclusion assumes that all Scripture necessarily excludes apostolic tradition. But the verse does not say that. You are reading your conclusions into the verse (eisegesis). Also, tell me what Scriptures Paul was referring to here? The Old Testament? The Talmud? He could not have possibly meant the New Testament Scriptures, because there was no New Testament canon at the time, and not all the New Testament Scriptures were even written. The verse says nothing at all about Sola Scriptura.

Angel: I strongly recommend you study through the book of Colossians, especially Colossians 2:8. This speaks to your church very clearly. You are getting lost in your tradition.

J. Salza: Colossians 2:8 deals with traditions of men, not apostolic tradition. There are some traditions that we must reject (those that nullify the Word of God), and some Traditions that we must accept (the apostolic tradition that Paul refers to in 2 Thess. 2:15). Paul does not say stand fast and hold firm to the letter alone. He also mandates us to follow the Tradition that comes from the apostles. You have to find another verse in Scripture that voids Paul's commandment in 2 Thess. 2:15; otherwise, your "letter alone" position is not biblical.

Angel: Your flock is going to Mary for salvation. I hate to break the bad news brother, but Mary cannot save you. We now have a direct line to Jesus and forgiveness without Mary or the Saints.

J. Salza: You obviously don't know the Catholic faith. We don't go to Mary for salvation. Catholics go to Christ and Christ alone for salvation. You really should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church before you profess to be an expert on Catholicism. Moreover, if you want to be closer to Jesus, then you better consider going to Him through His mother. He chose to come to us through her, and He wants us to come to Him through her as well.

Angel: This will help you understand sola Scriptura. I also would like a document of who witnessed this assumption of Mary. Just provide me with one witness. Give me the document and who wrote it. The doctrine of sola Scriptura simply states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church.

J. Salza: Where did you get that definition? I just checked a number of scholarly Protestant sources, and they each provide a different definition. I guess because sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, you guys make up the definitions as you go along.

Angel: All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

J. Salza: You just trapped yourself. If “all that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and no other source,” then that teaching must be found in Scripture. But where is it? Please…give me chapter and verse.

Angel: To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.

J. Salza: You have provided a definition of sola Scriptura, presumably on your own authority, but you haven’t told me where the Bible provides the definition of sola Scriptura. That is really the issue. If it’s not in the Bible, then the Bible doesn’t teach it. Further, as a sola Scriptura advocate, how do you explain the canon of Scripture? How do you know what Scriptures are inspired using sola Scriptura? You cannot, and this is devastating to the notion of sola Scriptura. You see, it was the Catholic Church who selected the canon of Scripture at the end of the fourth century. How did it do that?

The Church was led into this truth by the power of the Holy Spirit and used apostolic tradition to determine the apostolicity of the Scriptures. It also made this decision nearly 300 years after the death of the last apostle. If the Church can make an infallible decision 300 years after the death of the last apostle, then how come it cannot make equally authoritative decisions today? You cannot account for sola Scriptura during this period between the apostle John's death and the selection of the canon (and you cannot say that there was a New Testament canon established before 382 A.D. because many texts, such as the Apocalypse, 3 John, Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, etc. were subject to a lot of debate; as were works such as the Didache and Clement's letter). This destroys the theory of sola Scriptura.

You should also contemplate why there is not a single early Church father who espoused this theory of sola Scriptura. Instead, this novel theology was introduced by Luther, almost 1,500 years after Christ's ascension. You can't rely on Protestant exegetes of the 20th century to prove this novel theory. You must familiarize yourself with the fathers and doctors of the Church, those taught by the apostles and their successors. Christ's Church was built upon Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These keys represent the authority over the new Davidic kingdom restored and renewed in Jesus Christ. (cf. Isaiah 22:19-22). Re-acquaint yourself with history, and you will be in for a holy shock.

Let me try to make this succinct.

1. Sola Scriptura says everything we need to know that is necessary for our salvation comes from the Bible alone.

2. Knowing what Scriptures are inspired and what Scriptures are not inspired is necessary for our salvation.

3. Knowing what Scriptures are inspired and what Scriptures are not inspired cannot be known from the Bible.

4. Therefore, sola Scripture cannot be true.
The foregoing is irrefutable. That's where our debate begins and ends.

POINT: Knowing what Scriptures are inspired and what Scriptures are not inspired is a Revelation from God that was given to the Catholic Church. If you really want to be an "expert" in Catholicism, I suggest you begin reading Catholic sources; not the private judgment theology that has resulted in 30,000 different Protestant denominations of different interpretations and massive confusion.

Grace be with you.

 

Different views but not different Doctrines.

 

Martin, you misunderstanding is cloaked with your anger and hatred of that which you don't understand. People fear what they don't understand. It's easier to build a wall of hatred and anger than to try and see what is common. I will pray for you. Your anger and hatred must be purged before you can truely accept Jesus and his teachings.

Martin you sit down with the preconcieved conviction that the RCC/Orthodox must be wrong, so in your attempt to read scripturue, you make an attempt to find an alternate interpretation of God's reality. And more times then most, you simply glide over those scriptures that are blatantly RCC.

Your hatred and apparent anger keeps you from seeing God's word whether it is written or oral.

God has been moving since 9/11. Protestant Baptist Pastors are leaving the wicked world of Protestantism and returning to that which Jesus started and turned over to his Prime Minister Peter. I hope to be that number Easter 2007.

I will pray for you.

 

thanks for the kind words. But I have purchased the 38 volume set of "The Early Church Fathers" I am seeing a different church and belief thru their writings. Ignatius of Antioch(disciple of John) shows me something that I can't find in the Baptist church.

Either John completely missed the point when he was teaching Ignatius or Ignatius misunderstood everything he was taught by John. I doubt either is true.

 

Is it really thousands? Let's be real here. Alone in my tri-county area, 3 Protestant Pastors have been charged and found guilty of Pedophilia in just a 2 year period. But these don't make it to CNN or FOX because they are not RCC. Try this Protestant website if you want some real numbers on Pastors that rape children.

We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002

ALL Protestant denominations - 838 Ministers

147 Baptist Ministers

251 "Bible" Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical)

140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers

38 Lutheran Ministers

46 Methodist Ministers

19 Presbyterian Ministers

197 various Church Ministers

And these are just the ones that have been reported.

http://www.reformation.com/

So let us be real and fair..

 

Speakers at Southern Baptist Convention sympathize with Roman Catholics

[FONT=times new roman,arial]
ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Following a display of fireworks, Armed Forces hymns and rappellers unfurling a huge American flag, leaders of the nation's largest Protestant denomination offered conciliatory words for their counterparts in the Roman Catholic Church.


At the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting, some speakers warned delegates against passing judgment as Catholic bishops prepare to discuss what to do with sex-offending priests.


"We shouldn't enjoy this Catholic mess too much," the Rev. Bobby Welch, pastor of First Baptist Church of Daytona Beach, Fla., said Sunday during a service sponsored in St. Louis by the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists. "We're waiting on the other shoe to drop, and when it does, don't be surprised if there is more and more within our ranks."


The Conference of Catholic Bishops is scheduled to meet in Dallas later this week to discuss policies regarding priests who sexually abuse youngsters. The discussion is expected to focus on calls for zero-tolerance for priests who molest children in the future and a second-chance policy for those guilty of past abuse.


It is difficult to estimate the number of abusive Protestant ministers. While Catholic churches answer to a central authority, in the Baptist denomination and other Protestant faiths, each local church handles such allegations.


Southern Baptist officials expect some kind of resolution to be presented this week concerning sexual misconduct by clergy in the 16-million-member denomination.

The Rev. Frank Ruff, the Catholic bishops' liaison to the Southern Baptists, said he thinks most people attending the convention realize that this is not exclusively a Catholic problem.

"Our dirty laundry is out there for everybody to see -- and it's pretty dirty," he said. "But I think everybody here in leadership knows that there's a fair amount of sexual abuse that goes on in all institutions, in all churches, in all schools, in many, many families."
[/FONT]​

 

Should I continue with more reports of Protestant Pastor Child Rape?

 

You drew first blood by even mentioning it. He is who without sin please cast the first stone.