For those opposed to Sola Scriptura, please provide ... ?

Question

Scriptural sources that prove we may rely upon the traditions of men?

EDIT: "Rogue Knight," I suggest you read Hebrews Chapters 5 - 7. The Levitical priesthood was annulled (Hebrews 7:18). According to 1 Peter 2:5 and 2:9, and Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6, ALL true believers are now priests.

"Meg," I think the Jews of Jesus' time would be surprised to know you think they had no written Scriptures. In fact, scrolls containing individual books of what we now call the Bible were widely available. They were in all the synagogues. Jesus is quoted at Luke 4:16-20 as reading from the scroll of Isaiah!

"Geglefty," you may find it helpful to read the entirety of 2 Thes. 2. Verses 1-12 instructs against false teachings; verses 13-17 instructs the Thessalonians to stick with what Paul and the Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) have taught them. Nowhere does Paul write that an outside source of tradition is acceptable. In fact, even Peter deferred to Paul in this area.

Answer 1

There are no scriptures that qualify the traditions of men.

This is what Jesus said;

Matthew 15:5-7
"But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'

He is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you."

.............................................................................

Also;

II Timothy 3:16-17,
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

The imperfect man of God must rely upon God who is perfect and sinless!


..........................................................................

Also the Quran came out of the traditions of Muhammed who was a "Child Molester"!!!

http://www.anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_aisha.htm

..........................................

Answer 2

Isn't life an amazing thing? I was going to write my answer without ever studying Sola Scriptura and then thought, "maybe I should look it up so I know what this person is talking about?" So, lo and behold, I looked it up via search engines and Wikipedia and many other sources and realized that my initial and supposedly totally ignorant answer, was indeed correct:

The scriptures themselves are works of men and, hence, is a tradition of men. In existing, they prove this, which shows how easily you can find your reference. Although I have read the Bible three times over, I realized that there is no need to cite any particular scripture whatsoever. This may seem a bit confused, but I beg your indulgence in a small demonstration of the concept.

Suppose I am arguing that I am God. I have your full attention right now and I do not want anyone else casting doubt upon my claims. Do I call myself a liar and others credible? NO. I tell you that I AM God and that anyone claiming to say otherwise is a liar and an agent of Satan. If you are foolish and naive enough, you will agree and listen to no one else but me. Or perhaps you will recognize my deception and agree for your own hidden agendas. The point is that I have committed an ancient sin of logical debate in the face of the ignorant, who know not the rules.

Now let's look at your Bible - written (at the very least transcribed and translated) by men. Even if there was an original "true and inspired work of God" Bible, only a corrupt Bible would use an Ad Hominem attack - a method of lie to avoid honest debate that predates the scribing of the Bible. If your God is real, His word should be easily able to withstand debate - a method of seeking truth - rather than rely upon a cheap parlor trick of a dishonest tactic as an Ad Hominem attack.

Instead, the existence of such ideas in the Bible demonstrates how weak the Bible really is.

Hence, the Bible is not an almighty work of God, but a work - and a tradition - of men.

To rely upon the scriptures to determine if you may rely upon the traditions of men makes such behavior fait accompli. You are already doing it.

Answer 3

The main scriptural opposed to Sola Scriptura would be the texts of Exodus and Leviticus where God commands the building of the temple, the conduct and purpose of priests and the rituals to be conducted.

Each of these lead to the ultimate founding and building of the church as the active work of God in the world. The church, in turn is empowered to interpret the scriptures and to develop the theology which we claim as Christians.

***

Response - Jesus proclaimed I am not here to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. All of the writings you claim in retort are are post-Christ, and therefore equally suspect to theological tamperings. Each of the books you mention, while canonized into Scripture come form un-known authorship. Hebrews has no known author and while some claim Paul, scholars have shown that the writings are certainly not Pauline. The Revelation is authored by someone simply known as John... which is not John the Apostle (who was never exiled to Patmos but lived out his life in Ephasus)

Regardless, your very language indicates that all believers are "Priests". The office of Priest continues the tradition of the temple by definition. And the temple was about the ritual, not the Word.

As a parting shot - What Christian is going to deny the theology of the Trinity... because to do so would make you a poly-theist. And yet, the Trinity is not Biblical. You will find text proof that can be interpreted to suggest trinity, but nothing that does not require a little construction paper and scotch tape.

Answer 4

Pastor Billy says: Not sure how to go about answering this, as you post a doctrine which IS a tradition of men. Sola scriptura is a creation of 15th century Protestantism it did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It did not exist in Judaism.

I'd like to have someone explain where scripturel explains all tradition is bad or simply known as "tradition of men" after all the bible itself is a tradition. As a Catholic I challenge you to be more accurate, more precise and when quoting scripture to do so in context instead of out of it. These one-liners and bible hopscotch from desenters just doesn't cut it anymore. Catholics pray our separated Protestant brethren will be more rigorous in their examination of early Christianity instead of falsely claiming they have cornered the market on bible literacy with mere bible quotation. My experience has been some Protestants quote scripture better than some Catholics but many more Catholics understand the context in which the scripture was written.


I see you have an appreciation for Messianic Judaism currently you are missing the fuller perspective from your Protestant Evangelical sources see my sources list. I'll pray for you to Journey Home as you search for a greater knowledge of Jesus. You are always welcome home Suzanne.

ewtn.com see journeyhome :) :D

Answer 5

1)The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible and the doctrine did not exist until the 14th Century
2) The early Christians did not have a complete Bible. Also, the first Bibles were not available to indivduals until th 15th Century.
3)This doctrine does not allow for a final, definitive interpretation of any given passage of scripture. Thus, you can interpret anyway you want.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 states: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle."

Matthew 28:19 Christ spoke"Going therefore, teach ye all nations..." Notice that Christ wanted a "teaching" church and not a "book writing" church.

Answer 6

How about a little logic? How did the early Christians manage to transmit the faith before the books that now comprise the New Testament were even written? Jesus did NOT drop Bibles from the sky. The scriptural references you requested can be found by following the links.

"Suzanne", where did you get that I think Jews of Jesus' time had no written Scriptures? Of course they did, but the BOOKS THAT NOW COMPRISE THE NEW TESTAMENT (which is what I wrote) had not yet been written. The early Christians transmitted stories of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and His teachings orally.

Answer 7

You do rely on the traditions of men. Everything in the New Testament was written by man and on top of that you have no idea who these men were. Also what you consider the bible was ultimately decided on by a Pagan Emperor. All the other books circulating at the time were burned because they contradicted what eventually Rome decided should be included.

Answer 8

Well since I'm opposed to Sola Scriptura, why would I need to "prove" my belief with Scriptural sources?

Simply, God made man. Since God made man, God made (or gave) man intellect and free-will. Those things are not mentioned in the Bible. God would prefer, I assume, that we should use our intellect and free-will in a manner that is pleasing to Him...which I try to...but don't always succeed in doing.

Many of the "Traditions of Man" are things that some people have devised under the assumption that we have used our intellect in a manner pleasing to God.

Some of these "traditions" might be medical research, or the education of women...none of which are discussed in the Bible.

Answer 9

Scripture is a tradition from humans as well; it's just documented.

Answer 10

Sola scriptura being what, exactly?