Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone" (Sola Scriptura)

Scripture Catholic ^ | n/a | John Salza

[Iscool]

What do you say to Acts 1:2-3 "Until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whome he had chose. To them he presented himselve alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. ".

Act 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

This is a confirmation of what John said, Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Jesus spent 3 years healing people and performing miracles and speaking of the Kingdom of God...

There's nothing in these verses that indicate Jesus taught anything new that is not revealed in the scriptures...

And what of the apostles?Jude 17-18 "But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Chrit; they said to you ' In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions'" These words are no recorded inthe writings of the New Testament, but were part of the tradition passed on by the apostles that Jude assumed all believers knew.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, M

Of course it was said...All over the New Testament...In many different ways...

[Cronos]

Actually, the Catholic and Orthodox and Coptic etc. understanding of Tradition is one and the same. We both believe that the tradition written about by St. Paul and in Acts is the oral tradition that was necessary in a pre-print society which had a low literacy rate (I think this was in the range of 10% or so) and where books had to be laboriously copied.

This Holy Tradition is talked about in the early Church -- if you read Ireneus (1st-2nd century), he talks about this and how the apostles were busying spreading the faith and had little time to write books.
He also tells us how The Faith is one and the same throughout the world, even though there was persecution in the Roman Empire and there were Christians (Assyrans/Chaldeans) in the lands of a rival Empire (Parthians) and a friendly but far-away Empire (Ethiopia/Axum).

All of us in the Apostolic Churches hold to similar rites and religious process and sacraments -- even the Marthomites in far-off India retained these similar rites.

Holy Tradition was used as the basis to identify what should be canon and what shouldn't -- to us it seems obvious that the 4 Gospels should be in as also the 13 epistles of Paul, but how did they know that the other Gospels in circulation were not inspired? And the spurious letters supposedly of Paul or Thomas or others? Holy Tradition dictated that.

And we find the same canon in the Assyrians even after they were completely separated after the declaration of Christianity as official state religion in Rome (which caused the persecution under Shapur)

You don't have to be Catholic -- you can be Orthodox or Copt or Armenian or Assyrian and have the same claim towards Tradition.

*****
The office of the Pope is not the foundational principle of holy tradition. The office of the Bishop of Rome is found in Tradition and History as is the office of the various other Bishops and Catholicos (incidently the head of the Coptic Church is also called Pope, the present head being Pope Shenouda), but is not the basis of validating Tradition. As I pointed out above (and you should read up the history behind it - I've not even started and it's fascinating!) objective, impartial history proves Tradition as does scripture.

[Cronos]

From the NIV

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God

The words "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:" themselves indicate that the Gospels did not contain all that Jesus taught, they couldn't as "Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

For the second, that should be that those words are not found in the Gospels which hold a brief view of The Lord's life and are by no means comprehensive.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[greatdefender]

AMEN, bro!!!

[ajr276]

I understand what you're saying. I used to be Eastern Orthodox and I'm sympathetic to the Catholic understanding of Tradition. I share the belief that the Scriptures, outside the context of the Church, don't make sense and are not self-authenticating.

I think what I'm trying to get at, and probably not very succinctly, is that I don't see anything particularly objective about the Catholic or Orthodox understanding of Tradition. The Tradition appears to me to be a number of "traditions," none of which are necessarily authoritative unless there is a more objective authority. In this sense, I see the Tradition as a collection of doctrines and practices that can be subjectively debated between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians.

Overall, what I'm wondering is this...what is the objective means in Catholicism for determining that particular traditions within the Tradition are correct? In other words, how is the Tradition that Catholicism objectively claims for itself objectively validated?

[ajr276]

One other thing I’m reminded of, and perhaps you can clarify if I’m incorrect...when I was Orthodox we operated under the assumption that we viewed Tradition in a different way than Catholics. We thought of Catholics as having a category of doctrines separate from the Scriptures, whereas we viewed the Scriptures as part of the Tradition. Is this a fair description, or does it miss the mark? Also, don’t feel you have to answer everything. I would be happy to read a resource, or resources, if you know of any that might be helpful. I will re-read Irenaeus when I have a chance. Thanks for the help!

[Cronos]

"We thought of Catholics as having a category of doctrines separate from the Scriptures, whereas we viewed the Scriptures as part of the Tradition" -- that is incorrect, we too view Scripture as part of The Tradition. In fact the Tradition gave birth to Scripture yet is subordinate to it (like the Theotokos is to Our Lord and God).

Do not forget that a lot of our misconceptions about each other (whether it is Catholic / Lutheran or Catholic / Anglican or Lutheran / Reformed or Protestant / Orthodox or Orthodox / Catholic or even Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant / Oriental or even Oriental-Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant / Assyrian) carries historical baggage and also a lot of what we hear other people say.

If a Protestant believed everything what he had been taught about the Orthodox (which was/is little) you'd have missionaries rushing to Georgia to convert the "superstitious folks" who would tell you solemnly "we've been Christian fr 1800 years, who are YOU?"

[SQUID]

Tradition for the sake of nostalgia, money, marketing, superstition, politics, power, influence and national pride is worthless for the soul. Tradition as Christ has set forth for the sake of salvation and the preservation of scripture is priceless.

[ajr276]

Thanks for the clarification on that. I apparently have more study to do on the topic. :)

[Cronos]

A personal question, if I may — if you are no longer Orthodox, to which group do you now belong?

[Cronos]

Tradition for the sake of nostalgia, money, marketing, superstition, politics, power, influence and national pride is worthless for the soul. Tradition as Christ has set forth for the sake of salvation and the preservation of scripture is priceless.

True, that is why The Church follows the latter.

[Cronos]

Overall, what I'm wondering is this...what is the objective means in Catholicism for determining that particular traditions within the Tradition are correct? In other words, how is the Tradition that Catholicism objectively claims for itself objectively validated?

The Tradition that we claim along with Apostolics is the same for the entire Apostolic Church, this is common tradition as experienced by the Church throughout the world, whether orthodox or catholic or oriental or assyrian. We validate this within each other. Of course, individual church elders/fathers interpretations are just that, interpretations -- St. Augustine's teachings are not Tradition, but teachings, hence the Orthodox not really giving him much importance (which at times I agree with!) as in the Western Church, does not imply a difference in Tradition.

[ajr276]

I don’t mind at all. I attend a Methodist Church and am probably best described as a Wesleyan-Anglican. I retain much of what I was taught in Orthodoxy about the early church practice and ecclesiology, but left when I could no longer confess that I believe the Holy Spirit resides only in the Orthodox Church.

[ajr276]

Thank you for this explanation. I think there are probably things I do not understand, so I will do some reading and re-think my position. Thank you again for taking the time to explain!

[1010RD]

“If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us, and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”
- Basil of Caesarea

Excellent quote, now only if it were followed, no?

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.