Sola Scriptura

[thessalonian]

Here is something I wrote on another board for your thoughts and discussion.


Since Jeff answered your question directly pretty well I am going to take an indirect approach. Your question in part implies that oral tradition is of questionable inspiration because we don't have God's hard and fast original words to it or something like that. i.e. it's a tradition so it is suseptable to corruption.

Let me present this for your consideration. Scripture is a tradition. The Bible tells me so.

2 Thess 2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
[16]

Note the written word as well as oral are considered a tradion.


What is a traditions? A tradition is a teaching or an understanding, that is passed along from generation to generation.

2 Tim 2
[1]
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,
[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.


Tradition must of course be in complete harmony with scripture. Thus the Berean principle of Acts 17 is a good one. Some will say that the oral traditions stopped when the last jot of John was written. I find this unlikely since the Bible was not univerally distrubted to all Christians. Most certainly oral teachings were a part of the Church for a long time and for anyone to deny that they are not today is untenable. Though you may certainly try. The only difference between Catholics and Protestants is that we acknowledge our traditions.

Now here is the problem with the Bible as a tradition for you. We don't have the original pen of Matt, Mark, Luke, Paul, or anybody in the Old or New Testament for that matter. We have copies of copies of copies and translations of translations of those copies. GASP! These things depend on error prone humans getting the correct words written by the Apostles. Further translations by their very nature loose some of the meaning, especially to the English language which is not as rich as the hebrew and greek. For example we have only one word for love while the Greek language has 7 I believe. Now I have opened another can of worms for you I think. The implied question is how does the average Joe who doesn't know Hebrew and Greek get the complete word of God? I'll leave that for you to answer.

But as far as copies and translations the problem is we don't have the originals. As I recall the ones currently used are from the 4th or 5th century. Now I do not believe our scriptures are full of copyist errors. Quite the contrary. I believe first of all that methods that were used help ensure the accuracy of todays copies. Multiple people copying bibles and then those Bibles being compared does alot to root out copyist errors. And we of course can compare our versions with the quotes from the writings of the early church fathers to see that they are accurate. The fathers contain almost all of the scriptures. I have heard Hank Hanagraph talk about all of this. It is quite fascinating. But nevertheless, we do not have the originals. It was neccessary for man to come up with ways to ensure the integrity of the scriptures. Further I believe that this process requires guidance by the Holy Spirit.

A bigger can of worms is translations. There are literal and contextual, and readable translations. Further it is my belief that the beliefs on the individual translating will influence the words he uses in the translation. i.e. his own set of oral traditions will effect his written tradition, i.e. translation of scripture. Now of course others will examine his work and give input. Once again the Holy Spirit has to be at work guiding this so that we today have the authentic words of God. But even then you can only say in essence that we have the word of God. Not literally. For only in the original language with the original cultures and understandings of those people can they be literally correct.

Anyway, food for thought. Comments are welcome by all!

Blessings

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:20 PM'] 2 Thess 2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
[16]

Note the written word as well as oral are considered a tradion. [/quote]
good point here. i had never thought to use that verse in such a way

[Neal4Christ]

I like it, Thess. The autographs and translation issues were important in my coming to the realization that [i]sola scriptura[/i] was false. If we don't have the exact words (or any real confidence that we do, at least from the Protestant perspective) couldn't there be something missing? If the Bible was God's only authority on earth, wouldn't it make sense it was perfect and there would be no textual questions at all? And translations...boy. You could get one doctrine from one translation, and another from the same verse in another translation. Bottom line, there is no authority in Protestantism, and to make up for it, Protestants have decided to arbitrarily pick the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and themselves. And we can see the mess that has come from that.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Neal4Christ

[phatcatholic]

how do you all respond to the claim that the fragmentation of protestantism is due not to subjective authority but to the presence of sin in the world?

[spathariossa]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 23 2005, 03:04 AM'] how do you all respond to the claim that the fragmentation of protestantism is due not to subjective authority but to the presence of sin in the world? [/quote]
Catholicism is one church.

[Neal4Christ]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 23 2005, 03:04 AM'] how do you all respond to the claim that the fragmentation of protestantism is due not to subjective authority but to the presence of sin in the world? [/quote]
Well, what jumps out to me first is that according to that logic (I assume it is a Protestant claim because I used to use it ) there is never really any hope of knowing the Truth. You are still left with a lack of authority, and yet most Protestants would claim there is such thing as Truth. But they would have to admit they could never [i]know[/i] this Truth because of sin. I would think most would be hesitant of making such an admission. It would be rather pointless to believe in Truth and say it is unknowable. For all they know, their argument could be false, because who knows how sin has affected it. Seems fruitless for them to even debate this issue; they don't know who is right.

One could posit that he would not sin after his "rebirth" experience, and thus would come to know the Truth. But that seems very unlikely, because there are few that I know that would make such a claim. At best he could say he has the Truth, but it is still rather useless since he could not share it with others in any meaningful. Also, he still would lack any authority to verify he in fact has the Truth. This would merely lead to an exclusivist mentality (which many do seem to have).

But it seems to me that the claim of sin being the cause of the fragmentation of Protestantism is more or less a smokescreen. Most Protestants are fairly comfortable with their beliefs, believing they have been led there by the Holy Spirit. Sin or no sin, it is the same Holy Spirit. If they are all following his leading, the results would not be as they are today. Look at Church history. If the Church fragmented throughout history at the rate Protestantism does today, there would be too many groups to count. But it hasn't always been that way. Look at the first 1500 years or so. Surely a Protestant would not claim there was no sin in the first 1400-1500 years, becuase that would be a ludicrous claim. Well, what happened? The Reformation. The Bible alone mentality. I think there is a strong case for pointing at that doctrine as the starting point of this rapid fragmentation rate.

Bottom line is the Truth is knowable. Yes, sin distorts one's personal understanding or perception of it. But reason and history tells us that there is some way for us to know what is True. Look at how many heresies were put down in the early Church. There was an authority that existed then, and defended the Truth, and it still exists now. The evidence of Christian history does not support the claim that fragmentation is due to sin. It does, however, clearly point to the times of the Reformation, and the doctrine of the Bible alone, as the source of this rapid rate of fragmentation. To hold their position, one would have to either say Truth is unknowable, God is playing a cruel game with us by not giving us an authority that promotes unity of belief among Christians (Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the disciples to all truth would be pointless; see John 16:12), or the gates of hell have prevailed. I don't know of many who would make such claims.

Another thought is that such an attitude would leave everyone in a state of constant worry of whether or not they possessed the Truth. There would never be any level of confidence in the beliefs that were being held by anyone. The picture of God we get from this belief is that God has basically stepped back and left us on our own. It is not a God of love or nurturing. God knew we had a sin problem. Because of sin, it is all the more reason we need some sort of authority, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to matters of faith, when such matters deal with no less than our eternal destiny.

Unfortunately, the God of so many Protestants is way too small. He seems to be powerless. He can redeem the world, but he can't figure out a way to get the true message to them. But that is not who God is. He has given us all the things we need to live a life pleasing to him; including an authority by which we can be [i]sure[/i] of the Truth.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. Sorry for the long post; I didn't realize I was going on so long. I hope it is halfway coherent; I haven't had much sleep lately.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Neal4Christ

[phatcatholic]

neal...........i wholeheartedly agree w/ what you have written and found it to be quite coherent afterall

[Catholictothecore]

Read "How Firm a Foundtion," by Marcus Grodi. It points out versus like the 2 Thess one. Have any of you ever checked out...(runs upstairs to grab bible)...1st Corinthians 11:2, (mine is a New American Bible), Paul says "I praise you because you remember me in everything and [i] hold fast to the traditions just as I handed them on to you[/i]!!
anyone who says they are the Church Christ founded and has no traditions is either up to something or ignorant of much of God's written revelation.(sigh)

Edited January 28, 2005 by Catholictothecore

[Neal4Christ]

Many of them are in denial. I know I was for a while.

[Catholictothecore]

that is so sad. I mean, i've been raised around protestants all my life. A good number of my closest friends are not Catholic. It would be so awesome if they were. oh, well.

Let us pray, let us pray

[jezic]

honestly, i just realized this, i think we should have people start reading the catechism. I am beginning to find that the book is amazing. NOw if only i had more time to read it,

besides it explains everything that is necessary for a beginning into the Catholic faith and well past that.

[Benedict]

[quote]honestly, i just realized this, i think we should have people start reading the catechism. [/quote]
*cough*[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=28146"]Youmeanlikethis[/url]*cough*

[phatcatholic]

good call benedict..............i was just about to say the same thing