Well, that is a way of describing Sola Scriptura that I haven't heard before. I was under the impression that it means that one's theology must come from the bible alone. Thus, there is no room for "implicit theology" or speculations. I have heard people say with disgust that Catholics make the sign of the cross BECAUSE such a movement is not seen in the Bible! I have also heard some Protestants attack other Protestants because of the altar call was "extra-biblical" according to them.
Yes, and his oral teachings did not contradict what he taught based on (then) scripture.
Naturally. They should never contradict. Properly speaking, Tradition should not contradict because they both have God as their source. To us, Tradition is usually refered to as the WAY we read the Bible, not necessarily "unwritten" doctrines. The WAY we read the Bible is "unwritten" - it is a paradigm that has been passed down. When we see Jesus as "subordinate" to the Father in some of the Gospel verses, we do not take that to mean the Jesus was subordinate to the Father when considering the doctrine of the Trinity. THAT is an example of Apostolic Tradition. It is Scriptural, without doubt, but relies on a WAY of reading those Scriptures.
I wrote : How do we know whether the writers meant that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist? From the Bible, one can come up with several answers, but the orthodox, intended answer, according to him, is by following the teachings given, the Rule of Faith.
You responded: Now how self serving is that??!! :)
I am merely refering to historical facts. If one reads the writings of the earliest Christians, they consider the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Christ, not a symbol. Even the Romans knew this, since they accused the Christians of being cannibals. They wouldn't have been accused of cannibalism if the Eucharist was MERELY a symbol, would they? Wouldn't the Christians very easily deny the charge, saying "it's only a symbol! It is just bread and wine!" We never hear that... Thus, by examining the facts, we can discern how THEY interpreted the Bible. Being closer to the Apostles and speaking the language and having access to witnesses who have heard the Apostles teach, they would know, wouldn't they?
This is not self-serving, but following where history leads us. It is the OPPOSITE of being self-serving, because I am relying on someone else's teaching, not my own interpretation! I adjust my own ideas to what the Church teaches. There is our fundamental difference. I accept that I am not infallible when reading Scriptures and need a guide, and you believe that you are infallibly led when reading the Bible and need no help from the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth...
Until you realize that, YOU and your interpretations are self-serving. My interpretations are verified and corrected when necessary by the Church. You are the final authority on yours.
There are plenty. First see all the verses where Jesus says "It is written...".
That proves nothing. Jesus also says "you have heard it SAID"! in Matthew's Gospel chapter 5. Your quote from Revelation clearly refers ONLY to that particular book and ITS prophesies, not a future compilation of books that would be put together 250-300 years later!!! Most Protestant commentaries that I have read admit as much.
I do not find any Scripture that says "we no longer have to listen to oral teachings because everything has now been written down". Nothing like that. We are told to hold onto ALL the Traditions (teachings), whether oral or written. Nothing abrogates that. As I said before, oral teachings are important because they help us INTERPRET the written teachings.
John 10:35-36 : 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken—
I agree, Scriptures cannot be broken. I said that above. But how does that say that ONLY SCRIPTURES are to be followed? Surely, we follow things that are not in Scriptures, but do not compromise Scriptures. For example, the sign of the cross, a pious ritual that helps us remind us of Christ's work. Nowhere in the Bible is it done, as far as I can tell. Yet, it is not a contradiction of Scriptures. I would say this is one example of Apostolic Tradition.
The Bible swallows up the oral teachings that were true and faithful to what became the Bible. Certainly, some orally taught in contradiction to scripture, and we are warned to beware of them. But the Bible teaches us that we are not to add man-made tradition to God's own words.
That is a huge assumption that is nowhere said in the Bible. Can't you even be consistent in your Sola Scriptura beliefs? You state something that is an extra-biblical belief! How utterly ironic that your doctrine rests on sand.
Again, you have nothing that overthrows Paul's words to hold onto ALL Traditions given, both oral and written. He says virtually the same to the Galatians and the Corinthians. I got to tell you, I don't see where oral teachings are abrogated, especially when you cite OT words - when CLEARLY, the people followed oral traditions in both the time preceding Christ's incarnation and the time following His resurrection. The community has always followed oral teachings and will continue to do so, since the Bible never abrogates this practice.
You are assuming that the Bible swallows up ALL oral teachings, but I can tell you that is flat wrong. I can give you many examples of oral teachings that are not in the Bible, but were most CERTAINLY practiced, such as the ritual of Baptism and the Eucharist. NOWHERE does the Bible discuss the entire liturgy involved during these sacraments - but we know they must have said and did SOMETHING!
Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation.
Fiddlesticks... I don't accept that because you have admitted yourself that you have been wrong before! Thus, you do NOT know if you are absolutely correct in any future interpretation. You cannot know WHEN the Spirit is actually guiding you and when you are just interjecting your own opinion, to later be proved to be wrong. This is just plain logic. To say that one interprets the Scriptures outside the Church, the pillar of Truth, and thinks he is led by the Spirit simultaneously, is just fooling himself. The Spirit does NOT lead the Church and the individual in opposite directions. When your interpretation is against the Church's, yours (or mine) is wrong.
I accuse your leaders of error in interpretation of it
Based on your presumption that you are infallible, no doubt. Well, if they claim what you do, that you are "led by the Spirit", then there seems to be a problem, don't you think? WHO does the Spirit lead? Only you? This is why private interpretation MUST fail, logically. IF private interpretation was correct, then everyone who claims that the Spirit leads them would be in TOTAL agreement. They are not...
Regards
The theology must be rooted in the Bible, so I don't want to sugarcoat that, however, I don't think SS is offended by the telling of a modern day parable that can be backed up. I think we also have plenty of speculations, especially when the Biblical evidence is just not rock solid and absolute. Examples for me are that you won't hear me saying that the end times SHALL BE LIKE THIS, or God's creation DID occur within 6 24-hour periods. I speculate, but I don't think that necessarily offends Sola Scriptura, although it certainly "could". Others may use Sola Scriptura to defend more definite positions, and I believe that is "allowable". SS just means that for any certain claim I do make, that I must be able to back it up.
I've never had any problem with the motion of making the sign of the cross. I consider that, by itself, to be irrelevant to Sola Scriptura, or it could be said that it is in support of SS because the Bible teaches that we are to give reverence to God and honor Him. If it stood for something in direct contradiction to scripture, then that would be another matter, but it doesn't to my knowledge. I'm sorry you had that experience with some Protestants. I hope they weren't Reformers. :)
Even the Romans knew this, since they accused the Christians of being cannibals. They wouldn't have been accused of cannibalism if the Eucharist was MERELY a symbol, would they?
Not a bad point. They also could have been simply repeating Jesus' actual words, which DO sound like cannibalism to the unbeliever.
Wouldn't the Christians very easily deny the charge, saying "it's only a symbol! It is just bread and wine!"
I don't know for sure one way or the other what they said on this. I would assume they would want to deny it, but I don't know how they would have gone about explaining the Eucharist to non-believers, especially when it is so difficult to do so today to OTHER believers. :)
I accept that I am not infallible when reading Scriptures and need a guide, and you believe that you are infallibly led when reading the Bible and need no help from the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth...
I have never thought of myself as infallible in my reading of the scriptures. You saw proof of that yourself on the other thread when I was happy to switch a position upon being showed a superior scriptural argument. I mean, I'm good, but not that good. :) It will not shock me at all if it happens again. That's sanctification.
I do not find any Scripture that says "we no longer have to listen to oral teachings because everything has now been written down". Nothing like that.
Well, we ARE taught that written beats oral:
Luke 1:3-4 : 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
However, I do not have any problems with oral teachings as long as they are consistent with, or at least do not contradict the Bible or in that direction. I have to add the caveat that if a teaching by itself is "Bible-neutral" but that teaching is used to support any position that is anti-Biblical, then I'm going to be against it for that reason. For example, the IC is used to support the case for Mary's sinlessness.
Surely, we follow things that are not in Scriptures, but do not compromise Scriptures.
I fully agree.
FK: "The Bible swallows up the oral teachings that were true and faithful to what became the Bible."
That is a huge assumption that is nowhere said in the Bible.
LOL! OK, OK. Based on the direction this conversation has taken, you're right that my words are not the best. :) I wasn't thinking along the same lines you were. I was only thinking of "Biblical" theology that was taught until the first NT scriptures appeared. I didn't consider at all that the sign of the cross could be an oral teaching. But I suppose it can. :)
FK: "Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation."
Fiddlesticks... I don't accept that because you have admitted yourself that you have been wrong before! Thus, you do NOT know if you are absolutely correct in any future interpretation. You cannot know WHEN the Spirit is actually guiding you and when you are just interjecting your own opinion, to later be proved to be wrong. This is just plain logic.
I know that I know what the Spirit wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. That's all I need to know. :) I expect to be further sanctified in the future, so I expect that SOME of my views will evolve. What's wrong with that? The core will never change.
In addition, the Spirit teaches me things today that He would not now approach a newcomer with because he doesn't have the background to get it. It all builds upon itself. So all of us are at different places, AND not all of us will reach the same end by the end of life. The core is what we need to be saved, and the Spirit has different plans for each of us.