For those who believe in Sola Scriptura and no Tradition...?

Question

Let it be known that Christianity was born out of oral tradition,and for the 1st 400 years more or less,there was no canon and no official scripture, that is until the Catholic Church made it so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But how can you say you do not believe in Tradition? As that of the Catholic Church,and yet believe in the birth of Christ on the 25th of December,Easter and other Church celebrated festivals of Christ coming and rising for us,without tradition,since there is no mention of specific dates of these things happening,it is out of Tradition that we believe.
How can you say you dont believe in Tradition?If the Catholic Church is the only Church,Orthodox and Roman,that safeguards the Holy places Christ was born,died and was risen,so that all the world may come to believe,it is out of tradition that these places are known.
And above all how can you not believe in Tradition? When out of Judaism,a tradition,came our Lord and Savior.
Blessed Christmas To All

Interesting Answers thus far, I must say that Sola Scriture means you believe that only in Scripture lies the truth.When in reality from the conception of Christianity, beginning with Christ who came to show us the law and not read from the book of Moses to us, he inscribed that Tradition and Scripture are to be used in union.
More than an apostle, more than any biblical cleric, more than anything else. Christ gave us the model to follow, Scripture quoted by Christ with tradition started by Christ. What more is there? That is my proof, and that is truth.
Scripture without Tradition is useless, even those who don't believe can read the Scripture, but do they put into practice the teachings of Christ, I dare say not.
I pray we get more interesting approaches, seeing as the date of Christ's coming is upon us, tradition teaches this as such. No Bible reference is found to indicate such a date.
I love Christ and for this reason I postulate this question.
God bless always

Answer 1

Amen.

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?

And given the level of bickering back and forth about what Scripture means, do you believe that God expects each of us to be a scholar of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean to understand His word and the message of salvation? No! This is why He, in His wisdom, started a Church with teaching authority through Peter, the earthly father of the New Covenant and whose successors sit on the Chair of Peter, just as Abraham was the earthly father of the Old Covenant and his successors sat on the Chair of Moses.

Though we are not to "Judaize" because as Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, warned in the 1st century, " Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity," Christianity can only be fully grasped by understanding it for what it is: the Old Covenant growing into the New Covenant, the fulfillment of the Old Testament religion, the organic result of the coming of the expected Messiah Who was Himself from the Tribe of Judah. Tradition and earthly authority have always been an extremely important part of this:

Malachi 2-7
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 1

From a Jewish website:

An oral explanation had to accompany the Written Torah. Otherwise, much of it would be incomprehensible. For example:

Exodus 16:29
"See that the L--rd has given you the Sabbath;…let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." What is the meaning of the term “place”? The Oral Tradition stipulates that a Jew is forbidden to walk more than 0.7 miles beyond his city's perimeter.

Exodus 31:15
"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the L--rd; whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death." What constitutes work? The Oral Tradition explains that those activities involved in building the portable Tabernacle in the wilderness are prohibited on the Sabbath.

Deuteronomy 6:8
"And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." Without the Oral Tradition, one would never know that this verse is speaking of the tefillin worn by Jewish men during morning prayer. These black, leather boxes contain verses from the Hebrew Bible and are strapped to one's arm and forehead.

Deuteronomy 6:9
"And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates." This refers to mezuzoth, parchments inscribed with Biblical verses, which are placed in small containers and affixed to the doorposts of Jewish homes.

Numbers 29:1
"In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy convocation: you shall do no servile work—it shall be a day of blowing for you." This description of Rosh Hashanah does not specify what exactly is to be blown on the Jewish New Year, but the Oral Tradition does: a shofar (ram's horn).

Numbers 29:7
"On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation and afflict yourselves; you shall do no work...." Only the Oral Tradition teaches us that “afflicting yourselves” on Yom Kippur means abstaining from all food and drink.

Deuteronomy 12:21
"If the place where the L--rd, your G--d, shall choose to put His Name be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the L--rd has given you, as I have commanded you.... "The method of ritual slaughter is not found anywhere in the Written Torah, but it is part of the Oral Tradition.

If no oral explanation had been taught to the nation from the outset, the uniform observance of the Torah's commandments would have been impossible!

Now, the Old Covenant is fulfilled, and the authority of the Old Covenant priesthood has passed on to the New Covenant priesthood. The Pharisees after the Babylonian Captivity corrupted the Oral Tradition (and "sages" and rabbis later usurped the role of the priests); our Lord spoke against those "traditions of men" -- but He did not speak against the authority itself of thse who sat on Moses' seat; quite the opposite:

Matthew 23:2-3
[Jesus speaking] The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
In the same way, post-Vatican II hierarchs have authority but are now behaving abominably and corrupting the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church -- those traditions we are commanded to keep:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Our Lord founded a Church (Matthew 16:18-19), not a book, which was to be the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). We can know what this Church teaches by looking not only at Sacred Scripture, but into History and by reading what the earliest Christians have written, what those who've sat on the Chair of Peter have spoken consistently with Scripture and Tradition, and what they've solemnly defined. To believe that the Bible is our only source of Christian Truth is unbiblical and illogical. As Cardinal Gibbons in "Faith of our Fathers" wrote:

Let us see sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not. If you are infallibly certain then you assert for yourself and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope [those who sit on the Chair of Peter] and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own pope.

If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His word, do you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? or would it not be most unreasonable for Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving Him a means of ascertaining its precise import? Do you not reduce God's Word to a bundle of contradictions, like the leaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of every inquirer?

Of the hundred and more Christian sects [we have thousands of denominations today] now existing in this country, does not each take the Bible as its standard of authority and does not each member draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in the mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle, an infallible Bible is enough for me, and does it not proclaim the absolute necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter?

etc etc..

Answer 2

You've wrongly defined Sola Scriptura. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not imply that we banish all tradition. St. Paul wrote that we should not do so (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and to ignore each and every Christian tradition would be to go against Scripture. At the same time, the traditions of men should never outweigh or nullify God's commandments, just as Jesus stated (Matthew 15:3), yet the Roman Catholic Church has given the Pope the ''authority'' to change Divine Law. It is mostly out of this tradition that the conflict arises, at least for me. I could have almost joined the RCC when I became a Christian, until I was told about this, papal infallibility (which was explained to me as being more or less ''part time''), and a few more things.

What Sola Scriptura states is that we are not to govern the Church using anything outside the written Word of God. We are not to make our own judgments. We are to weigh everything out according to Scripture alone. It does not imply that we should automatically throw out all the work of the early Church Fathers, but if these doctrines are unscriptural (and there were just as many conflicting doctrines among the early Chruch Fathers as there are in the Church today), they have to go.

It is very well known that December 25th is the date on which the ancient pagans used to celebrate Saturnalia, the winter solstice. One of the popes (and I can't remember which one) replaced the pagan holiday with Christmas. By keeping the date, he made it easier for pagans to convert, while still retaining a good portion of their culture, and thus, their identity. According to most theologians, December 25th as the actual birthdate of our Lord is highly unlikely, but noone really knows. Most say He was probably born either in March or April. December 25th is only the day we celebrate Jesus's birth.

Answer 3

sola scriptura means you can make up your own mind what a particular verse means , and that leads to confusion . and yet it specifically states in matthew 16:19 than an authority has sole responsibility to interpret scripture , and that comes down through the successors of peter , as there was no bible for over 300 years how else did the christians get the true teachings of jesus christ but orally and big T tradition

Answer 4

Let it be known that when Jesus was born He was born in fulfillment of the Scriptures, the first 39 books of the Bible all of which had been written down in Hebrew more than 400 years before Jesus was born.

Jesus consistantly taught against tradition, see Mark chapter 7.

The Bible says:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If what you said is true, what Scriptures were the people in Berea studying?

And if what you say is true then which Scriptures is the dumb fisherman talking about here?

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You might have to read both chapters in full to understand what is going on.

Apparently the early church knew more about the Scriptures then than your religion knows about today.

At the link below you'll see 21 New Testament References to the Scriptures. Which is what the they called the Bible back then.

Jesus came and died for our sins according to the Scriptures, not according to Tradition.

Pastor Art

Answer 5

You have mis-characterized sola scriptura, and it is pretty easy to tear down a straw man. I will answer with a question. What do I need to know in order to be saved that isn't in the bible? If you know of something in oral tradition that is necessary for salvation, then tell me which apostle taught it and how you know.

Answer 6

With respect, actually there was written scripture. Just not a bible as it is today.

How did Jesus respond to Satan every time he put forth a temptation? "It is written". One of the first things Jesus did after his baptism is recorded at : 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed upon him. 21 Then he started to say to them: “Today this scripture that YOU just heard is fulfilled.”

May I ask, what exactly is "Sola Scripture" I mean I understand the term but what does it mean to you?

Answer 7

I'm a confessional Lutheran, Sola Scriptura all the way, but tradition is OK as long as it does not conflict with Scripture.

Mark

Addendum:

Thanks St. Preachy, Scripture does indeed teach us everything that we need to know, but what dismays most people who stumble over the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it does not tell them everything that they want to know.

"Tradition" that is not Biblical usually fills that void, and gives one somthing to do for their salvation, even though all credit is due to the Lord.

Sola Deo Golria!

Mark

Answer 8

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.



Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

Answer 9

So THAT'S why you guys have idols! Now I get it!!!