Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture

[Angelos]

In Greek: Paradosis = Tradition

2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (paradoseis) that you were taught, either by an ORAL statement or by a letter of ours".

2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (paradou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Lk 1:1-2
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down (paredosan) to us.
 
1 Cor 11:23
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on (paredoka) to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread ...

1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received ...

John 20:30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
 
John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written

[stevehut]

Funny how some "Christians" love nothing more than to diminish the authority of the Scriptures...

[Angelos]

Who are these "Christians" you're referring to?

[stevehut]

Anyone who works so hard to diminish the authority of Scripture...

Sorry, I thought I made that clear the first time.   

[stevehut]

Matthew 15

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
    8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
      but their hearts are far from me.
    9They worship me in vain;
      their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

[Angelos]

For me Scripture and Tradition are the two sides of the same coin. After all the early Fathers decided WHICH BOOKS made it into Scripture

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".


"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

[DCR]

Can we trust 2000 years of fallable men to keep the Tradition passed down from the apostles accurately though?

It's a judgment call to even decide who kept tradition the best on either side of every schism anyway.

That's another possible motivation to look to Scripture for all guidance... not merely an "anti-tradition" stance.  But, rather, it's an attempt look to Scripture for apostolic tradition.  And, it is the most trustworthy thing we have for that purpose.

[blituri]

THE PROPHETS AND APOSTLES WERE CHOSEN TO RECEIVE AND PASS ON REVELATIO.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him,
        My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him,
        Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
        blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

FOR THOSE TO WHOM THE SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN WHO CAN NEVER SEEN JESUS

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
        which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written,
        that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
        and that believing ye might have life through his name

Only a person who has never become a DISCIPLE of "that which is written" or that "which has been taught" will run out of the SEVEN SPIRITS of Divine Knowledge and need something more. However, most of what we call "worship service" is based on denying that the Bible gives us all that pertains to life and godliness by its sermons and song.

[larry2]

To answer this thread, I would add 2 Peter 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
 
God is not going to give us His word, and then have tradition given that adds to, or contradicts it.

Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

In Jesus' name - larry2

[trifecta]

Can we trust 2000 years of fallable men to keep the Tradition passed down from the apostles accurately though?

What's the alternative?  Trusting our own interpretation of Scripture.   Given that those church leaders before me studied the Scriptures far more extensively than I have.  Given that God works through history, including through his church.  Given that Holy Spirit guides that church.  Given that monks and nuns constantly uphold the world in prayer.  I go with the church that Jesus established, instead of leaning in my own understanding

It's a judgment call to even decide who kept tradition the best on either side of every schism anyway.

And Paul warned of this happening.   Once you look at the facts and forget about our personal sentimentalities, the answer isn't too hard  (The Orthodox Church).  God is not the author of confusion.

That's another possible motivation to Scripture for all guidance... not merely an "anti-tradition" stance.

In other words, our own interpretation of Scripture, regardless of what tradition says.   Or if you will, dump tradition if it doesn't agree with me, keep it only if it does.    This is not Scriptural, and certainly not found in Semitic culture. (Individuals didn't claim so much power then).

 But, rather, it's an attempt look to Scripture for apostolic tradition.  

If this is so, why not read the apostolic fathers like Ireaneous, Ignatius, Justin Marytr?  They don't count for much in Protestant circles  (although you DCR probably have.)   Rather Prots read Western 16th century "interpretations" of the apostolic tradition.    Why not, instead, turn to the real tradtion, rather than lean on a 16th or 19th century reinterpretation of things?  

And its the most trustworthy thing were have for that purpose.

But the church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth."  Paul says so himself.  If you can't just replace the word "church" with "scripture."

[DCR]

Once you look at the facts and forget about our personal sentimentalities, the answer isn't too hard  (The Orthodox Church).  

Well, of course.  And, any good Roman Catholic will disagree and say that "the answer isn't too hard (The Catholic Church)."  

So, instead of trusting our own interpretation of scripture, we now trust our own interpretation of who has it right... and then trust them.  I'm not sure that's much better.

[Angelos]

I don't think Protestants realise how much they rely for their OWN faith on the early Church's Tradition. To begin with the early Fathers are the ones that picked the Books that today comprise the Bible, it was THEIR decision that defined what Scripture IS.

Second, most Protestants believe the Nicene Creed, another masterpiece of the one Church.

Third, the core dogmas of Trinity and Christ as fully God AND fully Human were fully developed 600-700 AD, thanks to the Church's Tradition. Multiple Heresies were denying these core beliefs for hundreds of years.

So dear Protestants, whether you like to admit it or not, implicitly you DO trust the one Holy Catholic/Orthodox and Apostolic Church Tradition. Finally, for those who do not know, the core dogmas of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches (with 1.3 billion adherents) are IDENTICAL, their differences are  poltical

[skala]

I don't think Protestants realise how much they rely for their OWN faith on the early Church's Tradition. To begin with the early Fathers are the ones that picked the Books that today comprise the Bible, it was THEIR decision that defined what Scripture IS.

And to do that, they most likely compared scripture with scripture to decide what was inspired or not, right? Further, shouldn't God get the credit for working in and through the Church Fathers and led them to make this decision? So ultimately, it is scripture and God that decided what books would be in the Bible, not man.

Second, most Protestants believe the Nicene Creed, another masterpiece of the one Church.

No argument there.  I've always believed that Christianity is a living organism, that has been around since the time of Christ.  We have encountered controversies and we held counsels to respond to controversy, and issue written statements, for the benefit of future Christians.  but yet again, Who is behind these? Who is guiding the church the way He wants it to go? God of course! And where can we learn what God wants us to know? The Scriptures!

But, when you say the "One Church", you must not confuse the church from Rome the same today as it was "back then".  It has drastically changes in flavor and doctrine and emphasis.  Hence, the entire reason for the Protestant Reformation.  Today's so-called "one church", the RCC, is not the same as it was "back then".  Today, she is a harlot.

Third, the core dogmas of Trinity and Christ as fully God AND fully Human were fully developed 600-700 AD, thanks to the Church's Tradition. Multiple Heresies were denying these core beliefs for hundreds of years.

And where did the Christians at the time of these controversies go to prove the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ's divinity? The scriptures of course.  Who is behind the formulation of these dogmas? God of course.  Ate very turn, where you, Angelos, seek to give men credit, we should instead seek to give God and scriptures the credit.

So dear Protestants, whether you like to admit it or not, implicitly you DO trust the one Holy Catholic/Orthodox and Apostolic Church Tradition.

Oh, we like it and admit it! The problem is, what you're calling the "Holy catholic church" is not what we are calling the "Holy catholic church".  The word catholic means "universal", and there is no reason to capitalize it.   The Holy catholic church is the entire worldwide congregation of all of God's elect, not the papacy of Rome and his minions.

[Angelos]

You posted "So ultimately, it is scripture and God that decided what books would be in the Bible, not man".

I completely agree that the early Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were not acting alone. The Sacred Tradition of the Church is not man's work, it is the work of the Holy Spirit. So we agree there.  On the other half of you sentence, I hope you realise that it is a circular argument to say that scripture (i.e., the Bible) decided what books would be in the Bible!!

You also posted "when you say the "One Church", you must not confuse the church from Rome the same today as it was "back then".  I'm refering to the Church up to 1054, not to the modern Roman Catholic Church. Having said that, it doesn't matter because 99% of the RCC dogma and 100% of the Eastern Orthodox dogma has NOT changed since 1054.

Finally, using the world "harlot" to insult 1.4 bil. or 70% of all Christians (Catholics/Eastern Orthodox), shows your bias....

[blituri]

Second, most Protestants believe the Nicene Creed, another masterpiece of the one Church.

Third, the core dogmas of Trinity and Christ as fully God AND fully Human were fully developed 600-700 AD,

No one ever taught a TRIAD of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
No one ever even hallucinated the Father and Son as separated "people." Jesus said that the Father and Spirit were within.
No one ever thought of the Spirit OF God as a member of the Godhead.

Everyone defined God as ONE

FATHER was the thought
SON was the WordS when the "father" first SPOKE words.
SPIRIT was the breath that passes as invisible power between THOUGH and audible WORDS.

In the Nicean creed note that both GOD and LORD designate the same Deity which dwelled fully in Jesus of Nazareth for our salvation.
God speaks of the invisible Deity. Lord identifies the same GOD working in the World. God annointed the Rock, Manna, Water and every instance where He reaches into our world in an audible or visible way. This does not define two PEOPLE.

     "We believe in
    one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:-and in.
    one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father;
          God of God and Light of light;
          true God of true God;

    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and on earth: who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

        [We] also [believe] in the Holy Spirit.

    But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say

    "There was a time when he was not," and
    "He was not before he was begotten" and
    "He was made from that which did not exist,"
    and those who assert that he is of other substance or essence than the Father, or that he was created, or is susceptible of change.' 62

    Substantia I. that of which a thing consists, the being, essence, contents, material, substance
    Ousi-a that which is one's own, one's substance, property, 5. in the concrete, the primary real,
     the substratum underlying all change and process in nature,

God always had His WORD and His WISDOM or Spirit with Him.  Jehovah is ONE GOD.

The NAME (singular) of Father, Son and Spirit is Jesus Christ.

The Catholic "trinity" contradicts all church scholars by making a three headed idol or defining the trinity as a FAMILY as in all pagan trinities consiste NECESSARILY of Father, Mother and eternally-infant child where the MOTHER OF THE GODS or Mary is the true Mediatrix.

The Historic Church for several centuries before there was a POPE called itself The Church of Christ.  If you read the recorded history of England for a thousand years you will discover that only the BISHOP in Rome thought that he was the HEAD of both religious and civil government.  Just about everyone in the world did NOT think so.  The BISHOP at Rome as a kinda backward town became the CLEARING HOUSE to send out preachers BECAUSE he was a wing of the Roman Government.