Sola Scriptura was a noble appeal, but this slogan brought closure to
nothing. The Reformers ended up separating from each other and going in
different directions. They expressed their in-house differences in quite
volatile ways – all the while claiming Sola Scriptura . The Reformers also
created their own human traditions that had no footing in Scripture.
So, realistically, what meaning would Sola Scriptura have had in the course
of church history up to 1600?
What would Sola Scriptura have meant in the early church? Nothing. They
didn’t have a “New Testament.” You might say that some people could
orally quote the OT, but the OT couldn’t answer many “New Covenant”
issues that would develop. From 30 to 50 AD there were no New Covenant
writings, yet the Lord’s work went powerfully forward. Steve Crosby’s
article, “You Can’t ‘Study’ to Be ‘Approved’” (ST, 39:3-4, 2013) is helpful in
amplifying this point.
What would Sola Scriptura have meant from 250AD to 1600AD? Nothing.
The Scriptures were kept from the “laity” and were exclusively in the
hands of the “clergy.”
There was no “Bible” until 400AD. And then the only Bible version was the
Latin Vulgate done by Jerome. This was the only “Bible” until the late
Middle Ages when versions in German and English began to appear. The
Vulgate was never circulated publicly.
Even after the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, the
Bible came into the hands of some people, but still very few could afford a
copy (or have the ability to read it). The ideal of every family, or every
person, having their own copy of the Bible is a post-1800 notion.
From an empirical standpoint, Sola Scriptura has had little force or
usefulness. Since 1500 church leaders and “lay” people — even many
cults — have exclaimed “ Sola Scriptura .” Yet, what have we ended up
with? There are 25,000 denominations, a gezillion dogmatic and
contradictory interpretations of the Bible, and endless strife about which
group is closest to the truth. All of this and more has happened while
everyone involved has cried out, “We practice Sola Scriptura — we go by
the Bible alone — if the Bible says something, that settles it for us.” It is
clear that at the end of the day Sola Scriptura falls from the lips of many,
but really accomplishes nothing practical for the ongoing problems facing
the body of Christ.
We must face the reality that what Sola Scriptura actually means for many
is that they equate their interpretation of Scripture with God’s mind: “ My
way is Yahweh .” It is of utmost importance to see the huge chasm
between what the Bible says , and what humans interpret it to mean . The
way it works out too often is that Sola Scriptura is linked to the way
individuals/groups understand the Bible . This probably helps us discern
why there has been so much division among those heralding the Sola
Scriptura shibboleth.
In the midst of all of this dogmatic talk of Sola Scriptura , a tragedy of
monumental proportions has taken place. This tragedy is often subtle,
affects many well-intentioned people, and yet is a reality that has planted
itself right in our front yard. In America there is the fairly prevalent notion
that “Bible knowledge equals knowing the Lord.” My observation over the
years is that many are infected with this misnomer. I suggest that there
are a number of religious traditions which feed and exalt the head over the
heart. Paul crisply captured what should be our Christ-reality — “I will pray
with the spirit and I will pray also with the mind; I will sing with the spirit
and I will sing also with the mind.”

www.searchingtogether.org/sola-scriptura/

We need to recall that when the early church gathered together, they had
no scrolls in their laps. They came together and shared the rivers of living
water flowing from Christ through them. They had no written texts in front
of them, but the Living Christ was expressing Himself through each
believer. Note: even though the early believers brought no Book to the
gatherings, every person who came was a living letter written by Christ,
not in ink, but by the Spirit of the living God. Is it possible that our fixation
on a printed Book has contributed significantly to our not hearing Christ
through the living epistles gathered together? Are we aware of the fact that
even the idea of each person having their own copy of a Bible is a very
recent historical phenomenon? (See F.F. Bruce, The History of the English
Bible, 3rd Edition).
Doesn’t a lot of our problem stem from the fact that when we read certain
words and phrases in the Writings, we assume that “the Bible” is in view?
For example, when Jesus said, “sanctify them through Your truth, Your
Word is truth,” do we assume that Jesus was talking about “the Bible”?
Many take “the word of God” in Hebrews 4:12 as referring to “the Bible,”
yet the context shows that a Person is in view, not a Book. Keep in mind,
“the Bible” as we know it did not exist as an entity until 400AD. Do we not
know that Jesus Christ Himself is the Truth, that He is the Word of God?
A spin-off from our fixation on the Bible is that there is the real possibility
that we will become letter-oriented instead of Spirit-led. The Spirit inspired
the Scriptures, but if the Bible is not approached and handled in a Christ-
centered way, it becomes a dangerous tool that is used to justify abuse,
create division and false teaching. We must recall that during the most
explosive period of the body of Christ, 30-50AD, they did not have a Book
to bring to the meetings. In fact, from 250AD to 1800AD, it would have been
ludicrous and laughable for the person up front to say to those assembled,
“Turn in your Bibles to Mark, chapter six.” Haven’t most of us assumed
that in the course of church history people had access to the Bible just like
we do, when in fact before 1800 such access was rare and very limited in
scope?
The Scriptures are important. The problems are with how the Bible is used,
not with the Bible itself. Father has Spirit-inspired them, and their sole
purpose is to reveal the Son. T.C. Moore gets to the point:
The key to the Bible is Jesus. The point of the Bible
is Jesus. The God of the Bible is Jesus. Any
discussion of the Bible that does not lead to a
discussion of Jesus misses the point.
For people to proudly confess “Sola Scriptura ” has proven for centuries to
resolve nothing at all. In fact, the slogan has contributed in no small way to
the multiplication of divisions. It has been repeated as a mantra for a long
time now, and all we have is a jumbled mess and a pie cut up into 25,000
pieces.
Why can’t we begin and end with Solo Christo – Christ alone?
– Jon Zens, January 1, 2015

Hello, I don't know if you are open to me sending you a mail, I am not sure if you will get it but if you do please reply.

Thank you.

bobbyL:
Hello, I don't know if you are open to me sending you a mail, I am not sure if you will get it but if you do please reply.

Thank you.

Are you online now?
I am not getting your mail.

Hiswordxray:

Are you online now?
I am not getting your mail.

Did you receive the mail I sent yesterday?

bobbyL:


Did you receive the mail I sent yesterday?

No...

Ok. Thanks. I have sent a mail to you.

bobbyL:
Ok. Thanks. I have sent a mail to you.

Hi
Where have you been.

Hiswordxray:


Sola Scriptura was a noble appeal, but this slogan brought closure to
nothing. The Reformers ended up separating from each other and going in
different directions. They expressed their in-house differences in quite
volatile ways – all the while claiming Sola Scriptura . The Reformers also
created their own human traditions that had no footing in Scripture.
So, realistically, what meaning would Sola Scriptura have had in the course
of church history up to 1600?
What would Sola Scriptura have meant in the early church? Nothing. They
didn’t have a “New Testament.” You might say that some people could
orally quote the OT, but the OT couldn’t answer many “New Covenant”
issues that would develop. From 30 to 50 AD there were no New Covenant
writings, yet the Lord’s work went powerfully forward. Steve Crosby’s
article, “You Can’t ‘Study’ to Be ‘Approved’” (ST, 39:3-4, 2013) is helpful in
amplifying this point.
What would Sola Scriptura have meant from 250AD to 1600AD? Nothing.
The Scriptures were kept from the “laity” and were exclusively in the
hands of the “clergy.”
There was no “Bible” until 400AD. And then the only Bible version was the
Latin Vulgate done by Jerome. This was the only “Bible” until the late
Middle Ages when versions in German and English began to appear. The
Vulgate was never circulated publicly.
Even after the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, the
Bible came into the hands of some people, but still very few could afford a
copy (or have the ability to read it). The ideal of every family, or every
person, having their own copy of the Bible is a post-1800 notion.
From an empirical standpoint, Sola Scriptura has had little force or
usefulness. Since 1500 church leaders and “lay” people — even many
cults — have exclaimed “ Sola Scriptura .” Yet, what have we ended up
with? There are 25,000 denominations, a gezillion dogmatic and
contradictory interpretations of the Bible, and endless strife about which
group is closest to the truth. All of this and more has happened while
everyone involved has cried out, “We practice Sola Scriptura — we go by
the Bible alone — if the Bible says something, that settles it for us.” It is
clear that at the end of the day Sola Scriptura falls from the lips of many,
but really accomplishes nothing practical for the ongoing problems facing
the body of Christ.
We must face the reality that what Sola Scriptura actually means for many
is that they equate their interpretation of Scripture with God’s mind: “ My
way is Yahweh .” It is of utmost importance to see the huge chasm
between what the Bible says , and what humans interpret it to mean . The
way it works out too often is that Sola Scriptura is linked to the way
individuals/groups understand the Bible . This probably helps us discern
why there has been so much division among those heralding the Sola
Scriptura shibboleth.
In the midst of all of this dogmatic talk of Sola Scriptura , a tragedy of
monumental proportions has taken place. This tragedy is often subtle,
affects many well-intentioned people, and yet is a reality that has planted
itself right in our front yard. In America there is the fairly prevalent notion
that “Bible knowledge equals knowing the Lord.” My observation over the
years is that many are infected with this misnomer. I suggest that there
are a number of religious traditions which feed and exalt the head over the
heart. Paul crisply captured what should be our Christ-reality — “I will pray
with the spirit and I will pray also with the mind; I will sing with the spirit
and I will sing also with the mind.”

www.searchingtogether.org/sola-scriptura/

Good evening brother. Sola scriptura is a false teaching invented by Martin Luther.

Hiswordxray:

Hi
Where have you been.

Trying to wrap my mind round the things you discuss. I sent an email 2-3 days ago I think. I am open to learning.

It's time we break free from Bible worship

THE STRONGHOLD OF BIBLE WORSHIP
Christians have been enslave in various strongholds and the problem with this is that you never really know that you are enslave in a stronghold until God opens your eyes to see it. It always happen gradually, little by little bricks are laid till it becomes a mighty wall. Over the years we are gathered letters, books, and documents together to became a book we call the Bible, it became the official religious book of Christianity. Over the years Christians have come to see this book as sacred, in fact we have come to believe God that handed us the Bible Himself.

The devil has created all kinds of vain imaginations in our heart and various unholy thought had developed to become mighty walls. Walls that imprisons us and these walls are guided by huge armies of fear. Threatened by this terrible and mighty armies of fear we are forced in this unholy act that we cannot break free. We found ourselves constantly bowing down and worshipping the Bible. But it is time we break free, it is time that our eyes be open and see that we have been enslave and we need to break free and protect the freedom that Christ has freely given us.

"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer 31:33-34).
"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2Cor 3:6).

The apostles are not Moses, God didn't call them to a mountain and handed them a book. In fact everything about the new covenant is spiritual. When Jesus was speaking about the new covenant he said "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24).

The Bible didn't drop from heaven and it is not the authorized or anointed book for the administration of the new covenant. The new covenant does not have such a book, God doesn't anoint books in the new testament, He only anoints people with His Spirit. The Bible didn't fall down from heaven but yet we worship the Bible, singing it praise and saying things like; 'the Bible is God breathed word', 'it is complete and perfect', 'it cannot contain error', 'there is no book like the Bible' and 'it is the only book approved from heaven specifically to lead God's people'. Please do not misunderstand me but those statement sounds like worship and it shows that we have been worshipping a book, we claim we have no idol but the Bible have become an idol.

We compose and sing songs of praise to the Bible, we preach about the sacredness of the Bible and the Bible had become the identity of Christians; you could only recognize a Christian when he carries a Bible (this is contrary to the reason the apostles were called Christians). You hear people say things like; 'don't let the Bible fall down or even touch the ground!', 'don't sit on a Bible', 'don't tear the pages of a Bible or else you go straight to hell', 'don't even dear to burn a Bible' and with fear Christians ask 'how can I dispose an old Bible in a way that it won't cause me to go to hell?' Open your eyes brothers and sisters, the Bible is not a god. It is just a book, yes it contains inspired words from God but a book is still a book and nothing more than a book.

Some of us point to things, miraculous things that God had done through the Bible and we use that to conclude that the Bible has some kind of power. We use this to justify our unholy act of worshipping the Bible. We are behaving like the Israelites who worshipped the brazen serpent that Moses made because God used it to save them when they were bitten by serpents. Does the brazen Serpent has any power in itself? Does the rod of Moses have any power in itself? Should we go and start worshipping them because God used then to do mighty miracles?

Look at the Israelites, they carried the Ark of the covenant to war thinking that it would help them win the battle. But what happened? They were defeated, the Ark of the covenant was captured by the Philistine and God proved that He is not some wooden box. The Israelites thought by bringing the Ark of the covenant into the war they have brought God to come fight for them. They forget that God is not some wooden ark, the Ark is just a thing and God is spirit. We Christians are doing the same thing today, we carry the Bible thinking that it would protect us from the devil. God does not live in a box so also, the Spirit or the power of God does not dwell in a book, not even the Bible. God can use anything but that does not justify us worshipping it.

Well, we may say we do not worship the Bible. But what make the Bible so special than other Holy Spirit inspired books? Were they not inspired by the same Holy Spirit? Why then did we distinguish the Bible and set it apart from other Holy Spirit inspired Christian books? Why do we have Bible study in churches, why can't we take other Holy Spirit inspired book and start studying them in the church the way we study the Bible (I'm not saying we should start doing this)? Why do we treat the Bible as if it dropped from Heaven? Isn't this Bible worship! We need to open our eyes and see that this is idolatry and we need to repent from this sin. Repent Church and come to God, then He would set us free from this stronghold.

Please do not misunderstand me, I'm not against the Bible. But in other for us to move forward into God's fuller thought for us as a Church we must take our eyes away from every idol and focus completely on Christ. Let Christ be central and supreme. For Christ is the word of God not the Bible. The word of God is alive, it is a spirit, a being, a person and not the letter; "for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2Cor 3:6). We've focused too much on the letter and it has caused so much death in our midst. Look at the division, the confusion, the conflict, the anxiety and the insecurity that characterize Christianity. Isn't it because we've abandoned the person of Christ and focus on the letter of him. Oh, that we might adore, worship and be obsessed with Christ and not this book and its letter.

The Bible is a lifeless book which cannot give anyone life but it act as a map to the one and only Giver of Life.

The purpose of the scriptures is to help and solidify our faith in Him.

Catholics on nl have been saying this, sola scriptura is a word alone teaching that makes everyone his own Church and fragment the body of Christ, it wasn't practiced in the early Church, it was invented in the 1600s by Martin Luther who used it as an excuse for his schism, he soon found out his system doesn't work after he saw the Anabaptist and Zwingli use his theory and arrive at new heresy. Luther anathematized the other Protestants and started to rethink theology by making himself the standard for right interpretation, same things Calvin did.... but they had already opened Pandora's box and unleashed the weirdest abomination in ecclesiology... a fragmented Christianity with no bearing.

Ubenedictus:
Catholics on nl have been saying this, sola scriptura is a word alone teaching that makes everyone his own Church and fragment the body of Christ, it wasn't practiced in the early Church, it was invented in the 1600s by Martin Luther who used it as an excuse for his schism, he soon found out his system doesn't work after he saw the Anabaptist and Zwingli use his theory and arrive at new heresy. Luther anathematized the other Protestants and started to rethink theology by making himself the standard for right interpretation, same things Calvin did.... but they had already opened Pandora's box and unleashed the weirdest abomination in ecclesiology... a fragmented Christianity with no bearing.

You are right my dear, sola scriptura didn't solve anything. All it did was divine the Church and made way for even more division. Martin Luther intentions may be pure but the method he was terrible. Like someone once said, "the greatest damage done in history was done with good intentions".

Hiswordxray:

You are right my dear, sola scriptura didn't solve anything. All it did was divine the Church and made way for even more division. Martin Luther intentions may be pure but the method he was terrible. Like someone once said, "the greatest damage done in history was done with good intentions".

exactly, good intentions horrible method

Ubenedictus:
exactly, good intentions horrible method

If one would not be biased, I think it is still better to follow the scriptures as the only authority rather than traditions.

Why?

Over time, a lot of extra traditions came into the church and therefore, a purging of the system was needed.

Example:
-There was a time when indulgence for sin was sold to people
-Veneration of Mary (I know that as a Catholics you will reject this)
- Purgatory
- infallibility of the Pope ( I could be wrong)
etc.

The best way of sifting out what smuggled itself in was to look at the documents left by the Apostles (the New Testament). Anything not found in could be relegated to the realm of minor doctrine.

My take.

* its not my intention to attack the believes of the Catholics.


Following the Lord means exactly that: following the Lord
Following the scriptures cannot be the same as following the Lord
Following traditions is certainly NOT following the Lord.

The difference is just in safety.

The Scriptures is trusted: hence can be used as an operating manual in following the Lord

Traditions cannot be trusted (examples abound that can be proved to be insertions)

shadeyinka I just lost my post, allow me to respond later

Ubenedictus:
shadeyinka I just lost my post, allow me to respond later

No problem!

Ubenedictus:
Catholics on nl have been saying this, sola scriptura is a word alone teaching that makes everyone his own Church and fragment the body of Christ, it wasn't practiced in the early Church, it was invented in the 1600s by Martin Luther who used it as an excuse for his schism, he soon found out his system doesn't work after he saw the Anabaptist and Zwingli use his theory and arrive at new heresy.
Luther anathematized the other Protestants and started to rethink theology by making himself the standard for right interpretation, same things Calvin did....
but they had already opened Pandora's box and unleashed the weirdest abomination in ecclesiology... a fragmented Christianity with no bearing.

What wasn't practiced in the early Church?
What was invented in the 1600s by Martin Luther who used it as an excuse for his schism?
Why and what pushed Martin Luther over the cliff to use "it" as an excuse for his schism?

shadeyinka:
If one would not be biased, I think it is still better to follow the scriptures as the only authority rather than traditions.

Why?

Over time, a lot of extra traditions came into the church and therefore, a purging of the system was needed.

Example:
-There was a time when indulgence for sin was sold to people
-Veneration of Mary (I know that as a Catholics you will reject this)
- Purgatory
- infallibility of the Pope ( I could be wrong)
etc.

The best way of sifting out what smuggled itself in was to look at the documents left by the Apostles (the New Testament). Anything not found in could be relegated to the realm of minor doctrine.

My take.

* its not my intention to attack the believes of the Catholics.


Following the Lord means exactly that: following the Lord
Following the scriptures cannot be the same as following the Lord
Following traditions is certainly NOT following the Lord.

The difference is just in safety.

The Scriptures is trusted: hence can be used as an operating manual in following the Lord

Traditions cannot be trusted (examples abound that can be proved to be insertions)

Ubenedictus:
shadeyinka I just lost my post, allow me to respond later

Invented truth is not exclusive to only Catholics
but to the whole spectrum of religiosty

This is why, travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness

Close some doors though, not because of pride, incapacity or arrogance,
but simply because they lead you nowhere

Old ways, wont open new doors, so travel places
Visit many good books, but live in the Bible.

MuttleyLaff:
What wasn't practiced in the early Church?
What was invented in the 1600s by Martin Luther who used it as an excuse for his schism?
Why and what pushed Martin Luther over the cliff to use "it" as an excuse for his schism?



Invented truth is not exclusive to only Catholics
but to the whole spectrum of religiosty

This is why, travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness

Close some doors though, not because of pride, incapacity or arrogance,
but simply because they lead you nowhere

Old ways, wont open new doors, so travel places
Visit many good books, but live in the Bible.

I love the way you summed it up.
Probably because you know that both of us have a bias in complete opposite directions.

Invented truth is not exclusive to Catholics
Human nature is prone to bending the truth
But a written constitution saves against maladies

Every Tradition has a beginning
The issue had always been, how latter is this beginning

Shalom

Maybe the matter should rest, else a needless war will dissipate scarce resources.

shadeyinka:

If one would not be biased, I think it is still better to follow the scriptures as the only authority rather than traditions.

you have already framed the question wrongly.

the issue isn't scriptures vs tradition, it is scripture interpreted according to every tom, dick and harry who claims the HOLY spirit vs scriptures interpreted in the sense in which it was written, to an already believing Church in a Church context.

a friend used to say a passage interpreted without the right context is a pretext... that is exactly what the new pastors do, let me explain.


no book of the Bible was written as a catalog of every Christian belief and practice... instead they were books addressing specific themes and questions to already believing congregation who already knew the gospel and Christian practices and understood, the context of the book.

take for instance, acts says the early Christian continued in the breaking of bread some jjc pastor thinks it means they were sharing the word but anyone who read the early Christian Church will know the breaking of bread means the Eucharist. but some ignorant chaps don't know because they are ignorant of what such phrase means.

so the idea that every Christian practices is in the Bible is actually incorrect, the Bible wasn't made for that purpose nor did the writers set our to accomplish such. what we do know from the Bible is that the fullness of the apostolic faith was committed to the Church usually orally and sometimes through letters, a dual mode of transmission and the Bible itself tells us that both modes of transmission must be faithfully held. the oral word was to be committed to faithful men who will become teacher and pass it to others.

it is either we understand the Bible in the sense it was written as a letter to an already believing Church or we understand it as every man to himself document each man claiming the holy spirit and contradiction abounding.

neither was the Bible written in the fashion of sola scriptural, in fact that unbiblical theory doesn't work, Luther was the one who invented it, he claimed he had the spirit and did his own, Zwingli did the same, so too the Anabaptist, and before you know it they all excommunicated each other for heresy in fact Luther later regretted it saying it caused as many contradictory doctrine as there were heads.

it is neither supported by the Bible, practiced by the early it, for 500 years of using it we have 33000 contradictory set and 5 new denominations every day, that is a failed invention

MuttleyLaff:
What wasn't practiced in the early Church?
What was invented in the 1600s by Martin Luther who used it as an excuse for his schism?
Why and what pushed Martin Luther over the cliff to use "it" as an excuse for his schism?



Invented truth is not exclusive to only Catholics
but to the whole spectrum of religiosty

This is why, travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness

Close some doors though, not because of pride, incapacity or arrogance,
but simply because they lead you nowhere

Old ways, wont open new doors, so travel places
Visit many good books, but live in the Bible.

.1 sola scriptural wasn't used in the early Church.
2 sola scriptural was invented in the 1600
3 he had a guilty conscience and couldn't convince himself that the salvation of Christ gave him hope so he invented sola fide and since he couldn't support his doctrine except by twisting scripture he invented sola scriptural.



lastly you can take your own advice.

Ubenedictus:
1 sola scriptural wasn't used in the early Church.

Are you sure?

Ubenedictus:
2 sola scriptural was invented in the 1600

Hmm. Are you sure?

Ubenedictus:
3 he had a guilty conscience and couldn't convince himself that the salvation of Christ gave him hope
so he invented sola fide
and since he couldn't support his doctrine except by twisting scripture he invented sola scriptural

Hmm...
"he invented sola scriptural", indeed.
Are you sure he invented sola scriptural?
What was the original and real reason why he "invented" sola scriptural?

Ubenedictus:
lastly you can take your own advice.

Ah! Visit many good books, but live in the Bible
Yeah, after travelling, going to places, there is nothing like being back at home, for real comfort

Ubenedictus:
you have already framed the question wrongly.

the issue isn't scriptures vs tradition, it is scripture interpreted according to every tom, dick and harry who claims the HOLY spirit vs scriptures interpreted in the sense in which it was written, to an already believing Church in a Church context.

a friend used to say a passage interpreted without the right context is a pretext... that is exactly what the new pastors do, let me explain.


no book of the Bible was written as a catalog of every Christian belief and practice... instead they were books addressing specific themes and questions to already believing congregation who already knew the gospel and Christian practices and understood, the context of the book.

take for instance, acts says the early Christian continued in the breaking of bread some jjc pastor thinks it means they were sharing the word but anyone who read the early Christian Church will know the breaking of bread means the Eucharist. but some ignorant chaps don't know because they are ignorant of what such phrase means.

so the idea that every Christian practices is in the Bible is actually incorrect, the Bible wasn't made for that purpose nor did the writers set our to accomplish such. what we do know from the Bible is that the fullness of the apostolic faith was committed to the Church usually orally and sometimes through letters, a dual mode of transmission and the Bible itself tells us that both modes of transmission must be faithfully held. the oral word was to be committed to faithful men who will become teacher and pass it to others.

it is either we understand the Bible in the sense it was written as a letter to an already believing Church or we understand it as every man to himself document each man claiming the holy spirit and contradiction abounding.

neither was the Bible written in the fashion of sola scriptural, in fact that unbiblical theory doesn't work, Luther was the one who invented it, he claimed he had the spirit and did his own, Zwingli did the same, so too the Anabaptist, and before you know it they all excommunicated each other for heresy in fact Luther later regretted it saying it caused as many contradictory doctrine as there were heads.

it is neither supported by the Bible, practiced by the early it, for 500 years of using it we have 33000 contradictory set and 5 new denominations every day, that is a failed invention

I understand you well.

Humans will always misinterprete even clear words to suit their selfishness, ignorance and greed. But, just as the can do that to a written constitution, they can do it to any scripture as well as any tradition. Its just human weakness in expression.

That is why we must have a written document/ constitution/scriptures so that if any misinterprets the scriptures, others can use the same scripture to correlate or contradict the interpretation.

It is important to note that the early Catholic church was highly instrumental in the canonization of the Bible. Some criteria was used (which seems sensible to me) and any holy writ that failed the set of criteria are discarded. Like all scriptures in the NT are not older than 70 AD. Hence, scriptures are linked directly to the apostles or their associates for credibility sake.

It is worse however for traditions because they could be smuggled in and once a precedence is laid, such tradition become the norm. Many tradition have no basis in the scriptures Eg. Purgatory, Indulgence, veneration of Mary

Erring on the side of safety is following the trusted written word. Is everything written down? Certainly not but we can get by

Some of the things not discussed are methods of doing thing
Evangelism
Holy Communion
Exorcism/Deliverance
Healing
etc


Here, every church and every believer develops their own method but as long as it doesn't contradict the written word.

It is also possible to create traditions out of the scriptures! However, whenever any tradition clash with scriptures, we should follow the scripture!

MuttleyLaff:
Are you sure?

Hmm. Are you sure?

Hmm...
"he invented sola scriptural", indeed.
Are you sure he invented sola scriptural?
What was the original and real reason why he "invented" sola scriptural?

Ah! Visit many good books, but live in the Bible
Yeah, after travelling, going to places, there is nothing like being back at home, for real comfort

yes I am sure.

shadeyinka:



Over time, a lot of extra traditions came into the church and therefore, a purging of the system was needed.

Example:
-There was a time when indulgence for sin was sold to people
-Veneration of Mary (I know that as a Catholics you will reject this)
- Purgatory
- infallibility of the Pope ( I could be wrong)
etc.

The best way of sifting out what smuggled itself in was to look at the documents left by the Apostles (the New Testament). Anything not found in could be relegated to the realm of minor doctrine.

there was never a time when indulgence was sold, instead the Church preached that almsgiving was indulgenced and some preachers went and taught it in a monetarised manner.... purgatory is again part and parcel of the Christian faith, this is one point the early Church can help us in understanding. infallibility of the Pope is actually an expression of another ancient biblical doctrine I.e the indefectibility of the Church.


the problem is that you think they were smuggled into the Church, whereas if you read up the early Church you'll find that they were very quick in anathemizing any such innovation, and were alert to prevent such.
but more importantly this your opinion shows a lack of faith, you believe God preserved his written word but you don't believe God can preserve the apostolic tradition given to his church, you do not even believe the promise of Christ to preserve his Church from hades.

3. the Bible doesn't tell us that it contains all the"important" doctrine instead it tells us to hold both modes of the word as indispensable, the idea of throwing away apostolic tradition for Bible alone is alien to the Bible.

I blive different, I believe God protected his word and his Church by the action of the spirit, I believe there was never a time the Church taught heresy or allowed the creeping in of innovation.

Ubenedictus:
there was never a time when indulgence was sold, instead the Church preached that almsgiving was indulgenced and some preachers went and taught it in a monetarised manner.... purgatory is again part and parcel of the Christian faith, this is one point the early Church can help us in understanding. infallibility of the Pope is actually an expression of another ancient biblical doctrine I.e the indefectibility of the Church.


the problem is that you think they were smuggled into the Church, whereas if you read up the early Church you'll find that they were very quick in anathemizing any such innovation, and were alert to prevent such.
but more importantly this your opinion shows a lack of faith, you believe God preserved his written word but you don't believe God can preserve the apostolic tradition given to his church, you do not even believe the promise of Christ to preserve his Church from hades.

3. the Bible doesn't tell us that it contains all the"important" doctrine instead it tells us to hold both modes of the word as indispensable, the idea of throwing away apostolic tradition for Bible alone is alien to the Bible.

I blive different, I believe God protected his word and his Church by the action of the spirit, I believe there was never a time the Church taught heresy or allowed the creeping in of innovation.

Of course indulgence was sold especially during the times of the Crusades.

If Peter was the first Pope, it can be showed that even Peter Erred. Hence Popes are not infallible. The last Pope but one is also an evidence of a Pope who was sincere to recognize his weakness and thus abdicate forbthe present pope. We also know popes who were said to sire some children.

My take against tradition is not against the Catholic church. I only used such examples because I know that you are Catholic.

Every tradition becomes "doctrine" to the adherents.
Like C&S and Celestial church of Christ will not putbon sandals into the church. Tithes are a must in some Pentecostal Churches, Deeper life bible church has instituted a modus operandi for female dressing, The Assemblies of God Church don't use musical instruments bin worship etc

The key point is:
Is the tradition contradicting the plain written Word of God?

If such tradition contradicts or is unfounded by the scriptures then it should be discarded.

There are just three classes of Doctrines/Tradition
1. Scripture Based
2. Heretic
3. Placebo

shadeyinka:


My take.

* its not my intention to attack the believes of the Catholics.


Following the Lord means exactly that: following the Lord
Following the scriptures cannot be the same as following the Lord
Following traditions is certainly NOT following the Lord.

The difference is just in safety.

The Scriptures is trusted: hence can be used as an operating manual in following the Lord

Traditions cannot be trusted (examples abound that can be proved to be insertions)

if you follow the scriptures rightly then you'll follow Christ, they may not be equivalent, but one is to lead to the other.

following apostolic tradition rightly is also to lead us into following Christ, it is that faith which the church has bore witness to even in centuries where it was impossible for everyone to have a Bible the gospel was still proclaimed in the church orally.

scriptures may very well be trusted but its interpretation by various teachers who seemingly answer only to themselves and their self acclaimed holy spirit cannot be trusted and God understood this that is why there exist a tradition in which scriptures is to be read and understood, the church.

indulgence were never sold by the church even in the middle ages, instead alms was taught as something indulgenced, some preachers went on and overemphasized the money aspect as if it was a transaction. the church later found out and banned the practice, thus calling them to order.
this ended the practices of the unscrupulous preachers.

shadeyinka:

Of course indulgence was sold especially during the times of the Crusades.

If Peter was the first Pope, it can be showed that even Peter Erred. Hence Popes are not infallible. The last Pope but one is also an evidence of a Pope who was sincere to recognize his weakness and thus abdicate forbthe present pope. We also know popes who were said to sire some children.

it seems you have mistaken two different ideas, infallibility and impeccability. the doctrine of infallibility does not mean a Pope always lives a moral life or makes the Best decision or act rightly... sorry no Pope is impeccable, they are all humans, Peter the first leader of the church was so scared of his fellow Jews that he stopped eating with the gentile, Paul hit out against him, even our current Pope Francis was recently heavily criticized by fellow priests because they say he isn't "hard" enough on issues. Catholics don't believe that the Pope is unable to make mistakes... Pope make stupid decision sometimes, history is the witness.

what Catholics believe is that the gates of hell will never prevail against Christ's church and that by the help of the holy spirit she has the mission to bear witness to the good news for all times, so that when the Pope as spokesperson for the church after consulting scripture and tradition affirms belief held in the entire church from of old he is helped by the holy spirit so as not to teach heresy.

it means the Pope can't form new doctrines but he can clearly affirm the faith of the church against heresy in a definite manner, this is usually done normally by calling a council whereby the entire church bears witness to her faith and distinguish it from heresy, in rare cases where a council may be impractical, the Pope has the responsibility of asking all bishops to state the faith and he proclaim the same. this is seen in scriptures in act 15 the church of Jesus after consulting scriptures and the very experience of her leaders the apostles states that the decision of the council is the decision of the holy spirit.

My take against tradition is not against the Catholic church. I only used such examples because I know that you are Catholic.

Every tradition becomes "doctrine" to the adherents.
Like C&S and Celestial church of Christ will not putbon sandals into the church. Tithes are a must in some Pentecostal Churches, Deeper life bible church has instituted a modus operandi for female dressing, The Assemblies of God Church don't use musical instruments bin worship etc

The key point is:
Is the tradition contradicting the plain written Word of God?

If such tradition contradicts or is unfounded by the scriptures then it should be discarded.

I believe apostolic tradition never contradict scriptures but that it works hand in hand with scriptures and provide the right context for its interpretation. in fact I believe that any attempt to discard apostolic tradition is to do violence to scriptures because they form the basis for which scripture is written and make plain that which scriptures mentioned in passing.

I'll give you an example.

500 years ago Luther put his sola scriptures in motion, he read the last supper accounts and the writing of Paul that clearly says the bread we eat is a participation in the body and the wine a participation in the blood of Christ, he became convinced that when Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood he became literally present in the bread and wine for Luther this was a most important doctrine of Christianity and he taught same.
later came Zwingli he too a sola scriptures guy he too said he had the spirit, he too read those passages, unfortunately he believed that when Jesus said this is my body and blood it means Jesus was making them into symbols... that didn't make any sense for Luther, how can the Bible say people are condemned for eating mere symbols unworthily? Luther called Zwingli and both of them met and argued for hours, text upon text, exegesis upon exegesis, no solution, Luther excommunicated Zwingli and vice versa and when they left the meeting both refused to shake hands, both damn the other by anathema... that is the fruit of sola scriptura but if any of them had remembered to step back and remember that these letters were addressed to already evangelized Christians who pretty much knew what the apostles were talking about because they had already been taught orally they would have checked the faith of the early church and see what they believed, they would have found that the entire church from Antioch to Rome to Alexandria etc all taught the the bread and wine became Christ, plain and simply and that would have settled it...but no Luther and Zwingli disagreement still exist in their churches till date.

I could tell you another story about Luther and the Anabaptists but the issue is same, the Bible was never meant to be a stand alone book it was addressed to an already believing church and if you divorce it from its natural setting you will get a hopelessly fractured church with each person interpreting it his own way while claiming the spirit.

Ubenedictus:
there was never a time when indulgence was sold, instead the Church preached that almsgiving was indulgenced and some preachers went and taught it in a monetarised manner.... purgatory is again part and parcel of the Christian faith, this is one point the early Church can help us in understanding. infallibility of the Pope is actually an expression of another ancient biblical doctrine I.e the indefectibility of the Church.

How can you say that the church never taught it while it was Pope Leo X that authorized its sell?

the problem is that you think they were smuggled into the Church, whereas if you read up the early Church you'll find that they were very quick in anathemizing any such innovation, and were alert to prevent such.
but more importantly this your opinion shows a lack of faith, you believe God preserved his written word but you don't believe God can preserve the apostolic tradition given to his church, you do not even believe the promise of Christ to preserve his Church from hades.

3. the Bible doesn't tell us that it contains all the"important" doctrine instead it tells us to hold both modes of the word as indispensable, the idea of throwing away apostolic tradition for Bible alone is alien to the Bible.

There beneficial traditions, but when this so called tradition contradict the bible, it is thrown away. What happened in Jesus day shows that tradition can't have the same authority as the scriptures. And that errors can easily creep in if scripture is not used to filter so called traditions.

shadeyinka:

I understand you well.

Humans will always misinterprete even clear words to suit their selfishness, ignorance and greed. But, just as the can do that to a written constitution, they can do it to any scripture as well as any tradition. Its just human weakness in expression.

That is why we must have a written document/ constitution/scriptures so that if any misinterprets the scriptures, others can use the same scripture to correlate or contradict the interpretation.

and like any country, the history of Protestantism has taught us that a constitution without an authoritative interpreter is a junk document of good ideas because everyone will interpret his junk into the document. imagine that Nigeria is a country with a constitution alone and every body is to interpret it according to his patriotic spirit... the truth is that we will have anarchy. but we have a constitution, a supreme court to interpret it etc, when the apostles wrote the new testament, they had already taught the tradition in which context it is rightly understood and had a church capable of authoritatively interpreting the document. a Bible alone Christianity as history has shown us is simply Protestantism in anarchy.

It is important to note that the early Catholic church was highly instrumental in the canonization of the Bible. Some criteria was used (which seems sensible to me) and any holy writ that failed the set of criteria are discarded. Like all scriptures in the NT are not older than 70 AD. Hence, scriptures are linked directly to the apostles or their associates for credibility sake.

It is worse however for traditions because they could be smuggled in and once a precedence is laid, such tradition become the norm. Many tradition have no basis in the scriptures Eg. Purgatory, Indulgence, veneration of Mary

of course the early church was instrumental in the Canon, but do you know that the canon was not composed as an exegesis material but actually as a liturgical work? the canon was simply the books to be read in liturgy... not a compendium of doctrines and practice, in fact the opposite was the case the bishops of apostolic churches were the custodian and surety for correct practices Iraeneus of Lyons makes the points clearly... I understand you may not want to hear it so I won't quote...the scriptures were profitable for those things but if you weren't reading them with the church then you're doing your own thing.

funny enough the stuff you named is supported if scriptures is read in the early church, but if you are reading them according to your 21 century today ideas then you will imagine as you do now that they are unbiblical, whereas the only problem is that you have refused to interpret the scriptures in their context.

Erring on the side of safety is following the trusted written word. Is everything written down? Certainly not but we can get by

Some of the things not discussed are methods of doing thing
Evangelism
Holy Communion
Exorcism/Deliverance
Healing
etc


Here, every church and every believer develops their own method but as long as it doesn't contradict the written word.

It is also possible to create traditions out of the scriptures! However, whenever any tradition clash with scriptures, we should follow the scripture!

the so-called erring on the side of safety is an error, the Bible, the early church has given us the template for reading scriptures, it says hold the written and the unwritten, it shows us how to recognise the true unwritten, it says it was conferred to leaders in the churches and those were to teach other faithful men, it shows the church as a teaching authority... for me that is the safe side, the unbiblical idea of Bible alone causing thousands of denomination is for me the exact unsafe bet a rather big error.