Sola Scriptura a "Traditon of Men!?"

Many Protestants claim there are certain doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church that find their basis in the “traditions of men.”

What they mean by this is that certain doctrines have no basis in Scripture and were never taught by the Apostles and therefore are “tradtions of men.”

My question is this:

Why do they not apply this criteria to their own doctrines? What about Sola Scriptura? Was this taught by the Apostles?

Is it not a “tradition of men?”

Peace

Bingo! You have hit the nail on the head!

Sola Scriptura is indeed a false “tradition of men” by which Protestants make null the clear teaching of Scripture (cf. John 6).

Joannes

[quote=dennisknapp]Many Protestants claim there are certain doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church that find their basis in the “traditions of men.”

What they mean by this is that certain doctrines have no basis in Scripture and were never taught by the Apostles and therefore are “tradtions of men.”

My question is this:

Why do they not apply this criteria to their own doctrines? What about Sola Scriptura? Was this taught by the Apostles?

Is it not a “tradition of men?”

Peace
[/quote]

Denis,
you are correct. Sola Scriptura was not taught in the early Church. It’s counterpart, “Scripture interprets Scripture” is also a doctrine of men, yet the Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant swears by these traditions that are post-Reformation

Maggie

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21
"Sola Scriptura" might have been an over-reaction. We are not to put out the Spirit’s fire.

On the other hand, we are to test everything. I do not accept the wisdom of men simply because they claim authority unto themselves.

That is true, I do not trust the wisdom of men, I even have to sorta mistrust myself, I can’t claim to always be knowing what scripture meant to say, each time I personally read the Bible.

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20

That is why I do trust the Church established by Jesus Christ. Not because there are men in it who are pretty smart or have experience and have studied scripture, but because Jesus established the Church. The Church then had a council and established the Canon of Scripture.
I then can look to the Church, because the teachings are historically correct, logically correct, biblically correct and I do not have to reinvent my religion each time my perspective changes. How would I believe that the Church that Jesus Christ founded, the apostles he taught would fall away and teach the wrong thing? Then how would I trust the Bible?

That is why I do trust the Church established by Jesus Christ. Not because there are men in it who are pretty smart or have experience and have studied scripture, but because Jesus established the Church. The Church then had a council and established the Canon of Scripture.
I then can look to the Church, because the teachings are historically correct, logically correct, biblically correct and I do not have to reinvent my religion each time my perspective changes.

That’s something that has an appeal to me. As a Protestant who has had to be ‘led by the Spirit’ about certain passages or relying on others who are ‘led by the Spirit’, I can only imagine the relief and the certainty (perhaps for lack of a better word) that the burden of figuring everything out doesn’t lie strictly on the shoulders of the individual.

How nice. :slight_smile:

[quote=dennisknapp]Why do they not apply this criteria to their own doctrines? What about Sola Scriptura? Was this taught by the Apostles?

Is it not a “tradition of men?”

Peace
[/quote]

You are correct. In 2 Thess 2:15 it is very clear that Tradition IS also important. In 2 Thess 3:6 it says we are to shun those acting not in accord with Tradition. In Acts 20:35 Paul quotes Jesus as saying, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” yet no where in the four gospels does Jesus say this. Where did Paul come up with it? It was passed down to Paul from the other Apostles that Jesus said it. The Bible itself says that not everything Christ said and did was recorded.
John 21:25 - “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

posted by Curious

That’s something that has an appeal to me. As a Protestant who has had to be ‘led by the Spirit’ about certain passages or relying on others who are ‘led by the Spirit’, I can only imagine the relief and the certainty (perhaps for lack of a better word) that the burden of figuring everything out doesn’t lie strictly on the shoulders of the individual.

How nice. :slight_smile:

That is exactly how I felt. While in the Protestant Churches I had good men who preached at different churches who were completely opposite on a few different teachings. So I had to be led by the Spirit into figuring out who was right. The “Holy Spirit” led a friend into the Mormon Church:(

But the great part is, even though I no longer have to figure out who is right, I can satisfy my intellect and look in reams of information on why Catholics believe what we believe! Faith, intellect and assurance. This is the confidence God wants us to have!

God Bless,
Maria

Faith, intellect and assurance. This is the confidence God wants us to have!

Yes. I like that too. It seems, at least in my neck of the woods (Appalachian Mountains) that nobody wants you to use your intellect at all. It seems the feeling around here is intellect = no faith.
I’ve always believed that God gave us an intellect, and curiosity, and desire for knowledge and logic for a reason. Oh, I don’t mean everything can explained to human satisfaction, but it seems that Catholics are much more apt to go all out and study their guts out as far as their Faith.

I guess Protestants do too sometimes, just not around here.

Blah…bunny trail again. :o

But maybe this effort against intellect is what keeps some people in sola scriptura. It’s the whole “we have the holy spirit to guide us” thing. And of course, the same old tired worn out question of “Yeah, but which one of you is led by the Holy Spirit.” Lack of desire to explore, maybe? Lack of the willingness to accept that God would not leave us orphans to struggle on our own, but give us some help. Yes the Holy Spirit is our Helper, but again, which one is being led by the Spirit when two interpretations conflict? Is it not beautifully logical and wonderful that God would leave a Church to rely on?

stops making a speech and runs offf

Curious,
I appreciate your forthrightness. It is refreshing to read an honest Protestant’s post.

The fact that there are so many different religious and beliefs proves that Jesus did not leave just the written word for each of us to interpret and try to follow. Jesus doesn’t spread confusion. Jesus Christ established and gave to us an orderly Church with Peter as the head of the Church. That Church today is known as the Catholic Church.

:blessyou:
Shannin

[quote=Curious]That’s something that has an appeal to me. As a Protestant who has had to be ‘led by the Spirit’ about certain passages or relying on others who are ‘led by the Spirit’, I can only imagine the relief and the certainty (perhaps for lack of a better word) that the burden of figuring everything out doesn’t lie strictly on the shoulders of the individual.
How nice. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Curious,
I appreciate your forthrightness. It is refreshing to read an honest Protestant’s post.

And I appreciate the compliment. Being honest, especially with oneself, is in my opinion a big step in finding the truth.
It is still difficult for me, but I’m trying to be willing to let the things that I"ve known be ripped into shreds if they are not truth.

In other words, I’m very much trying to recognize truth when I see it.

There is beauty, there is logic, there is soundness in a plan to leave a Church for help, for a final say, for matters to be taken care of which the individual has no business trying to figure out.

If that is truly the plan of God…I say “GOOD JOB GOD!!” :clapping:

It’s amazing to see how blindly a person can follow without knowing they’re being a blind follower. I’ve been taught sola scriptura, so sola scriptura it has been. And this is a difficult place: if sola scriptura is an invention of men, like many here maintain, then Protestants, including myself, are lacking some good stuff.

I’m trying ya’ll. I’m trying to be open and stay open to all this.

Perhaps people hold to sola scriptura now because of their desire for a 'simple gospel" - something I’ve read about quite a bit on these threads.

It would seem much simpler to have one book to act as a guide and if something isn’t in the book - it doesn’t count. People are desperately trying to make things uncomplicated - sola scriptura on the surface seems to be such. I cannot account for who initially started sola scriptura - i still don’t have history yet - but perhaps my reason is one of the reasons why people adhere to it in the present day.

**Prots rail against traditions of men and proclaim “If it ain’t in the Book I ain’t buying it.” [font=Arial]But they are deluding themselves, when one is faced with this position ask this: You buy Sola Scriptura and it ain’t in the bible right? Do you celebrate Christmas? Its not in the bible to do so, is Easter? Why do you worship on Sundays show me the scripture to do so. Do you guys sing or play instruments in your worship services? It’s not in the New Testament and the Protestant reformers actually banned it from their churches. What about not drinking any alcohol, please provide the quote from Holy Writ, Do you allow divorce? Do you guys have altar calls? What about meeting in Churches and use of pews? Neither of these items follow what we were taught explicitly in the bible. Many protestant ministers use vestments and priestly collars too (obviously to borrow Catholic authority from our Priesthood), also, not of scripture. The bible has no table of contents but it’s accepted (or was until a huge chunk was discarded) by protestants (odd that they accept its Catholic origin), you also accept the divinely revealed truth of the unscriptural Catholic teaching of the Trinity right? Have you ever heard the encouragement to pray the “sinner’s prayer” and “ask Jesus into your heart” or the term “imputed righteousness”, what about “by faith alone” we are saved? None of them are written out in the bible. Protestants follow so many unbiblical theological teachings, traditions and practices that it really is shocking to hear any say “if it ain’t in the bible I don’t buy it”.[/font]

**To continue my thoughts on the subject, If God and intended his spirit to be guiding His bride the Church, since He is not the author of confusion, then why the mass confusion in the Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura and are supposedly being led by the Spirit of God rather than the authority of the Church? If they were all truly interpreting the bible with its “perspicuity” and all that then why all these dividing lines among the various branches of them such as: **[font=arial]Infant or Adult baptism?Calvinist Predestination or Armenian Free Will?Once Saved Always Saved?Can You Lose Your Salvation?Is there Assurance of Salvation? Allow Divorces and Abortion?Is prophecy still given? Are there still Miracles? Are miracles guaranteed if you have enough faith? Will there be a pre-tribulation Rapture of Christians? Premillenialism or Postmillenialism? Will there even be a millennium? Speaking in Tongues - is it valid or not? Baptism in the Holy Spirit - is it real or a deception?
Are demons real? Is Jesus physically present in Communion? Are the Sacraments necessary to salvation? What form of Authority should exist in the Church? Need a Church have Bishops? Can Women be Pastors? Can homosexuals be admitted to Church? Does God promise Christians material prosperity? Should all Images be banned in Worship? How do you become a Christian? Is Jesus really man or is he just a man or was he fully divine? And the list goes on and on… **Now if the Holy Spirit taught each Christian, or even each Church, the correct interpretation of scripture, then surely all these opposed interpretations would not arise? And logically, since the Spirit teaches only ONE TRUTH, all but one of the many thousands of interpretations of scripture that exist, must be wrong. What can make a prot so sure that their particular view pastor or denomination’s view is the absolute correct view? How can a new convert sort this mess out if he were to see a poster “repent and turn to Jesus” and decided he had to do it that day, how could he know what church to go to? My advice would be to determine what Church’s teachings are the nearest to the ones held by the early Church?? And that is determined by simply reading historical documents preserved from the early Church. St. Ignatius is a wonderful one. **

Bottom line: Sola Scriptura is an UNBIBLICAL and man-made doctrine. The Christians in the first three centuries never heard of such a thing. The bible itself says that not all the teachings were written down (Jn 21:25) and that we are to hold fast to divine traditions (1 Cor 11:2) whether they be oral or in writing (1 Thess 2:15). Further we are to SHUN people who refuse to act in accord with Divine Tradition (2 Thess 3:6).

[/font]

[quote=Curious]It seems that Catholics are much more apt to go all out and study their guts out as far as their Faith.
[/quote]

Curious, beware of comparing apples to oranges. At this forum you encounter Catholics who do apologetics as a major area of interest. Out on the street you will be hard put to find a Catholic who understands his faith enough to explain it, much less one who has any knowledge of Scripture.

I taught for years at a Catholic college. The students were brighter than average, but the Catholics were usually (not always) clueless about their faith and their Bibles compared to the Evangelicals. (Mainline Protestants are equally clueless about the Bible; why study something you don’t even believe?)

Throughout history there have always been brilliant Catholic Bible scholars and defenders of their Church. But it has not been customary for the rank and file (priesthood or laity) to spend their time studying these things. That has been more characteristic of Protestant culture.

And that is why the literacy rates between Catholic and Protestant nations have differed so widely. Protestants emphasized literacy primarily so that people could read their Bibles.

[quote=Curious]Perhaps people hold to sola scriptura now because of their desire for a 'simple gospel" - something I’ve read about quite a bit on these threads.

It would seem much simpler to have one book to act as a guide and if something isn’t in the book - it doesn’t count. People are desperately trying to make things uncomplicated - sola scriptura on the surface seems to be such. I cannot account for who initially started sola scriptura - i still don’t have history yet - but perhaps my reason is one of the reasons why people adhere to it in the present day.
[/quote]

I think this is a good point. I think sometimes people try and further simplify the Bible itself. Take “once saved always saved.” If this were the case, all the Bible would need is a little historical account of Jesus, and then just the instruction to say you are sorry for your sins, profess a faith in Jesus, and you are saved. There wouldn’t be all these instructional epistles. Why would St. Paul have written so much, if all those early Chirstians had to do was “accept Jesus as their personal savior,” especially since he was writing to people who were already Christians (already “saved” according to OSAS).

Curious, beware of comparing apples to oranges. At this forum you encounter Catholics who do apologetics as a major area of interest. Out on the street you will be hard put to find a Catholic who understands his faith enough to explain it, much less one who has any knowledge of Scripture.

Point taken Kevan. I suppose most of my exposure to Catholics have been from these boards.

Good point on having caution at what people say about what they believe in Catholicism. Many, many people are born Catholic and are just Catholic by name and sometimes go to Church but don’t even know why they believe what they believe. That is why I left the Church almost 15 years ago. This is changing as many parishes are getting better and better at education, but it will take time.

I believe this is a kind of result of the thought that, since so many educated Catholics understand that it is the truth, they can’t fathom people being led astray very easily. They underestimate the level of ignorance or misunderstanding that can occur.

Getting back to the subject, I believe a simple gospel fits more the Catholic view, as you don’t have to argue over what everyone meant to say in scripture.* This all depends on peoples upbringing, values and agendas, which leads to all these different perspectives on what the Bible means. Leading to many discussions on what something means even in one church I once went to. If someone didn’t agree and got bothered enough by it they just went to another church which better fit their own beliefs.

I went back to early Christian writings, (Church Fathers), this led me to the Catholic Church. They give a perspective on what people thought, and believed back in the time of the apostles and directly afterward. Also each time I doubted the Catholic Church I investigated it and it has not let me down. Maybe I will start a thread on one of these when I have the time. Look for it in a couple of days I think I will title it about “Saint Death” and Mexico.

GK Chesterton once said something to the effect of, believing in the Church allows for a more indepth view of religion, as you don’t have to reinvent it each lifetime. It is great, one you understand that Jesus did create a Church here on earth.

[quote=Curious]. . . . it seems that Catholics are much more apt to go all out and study their guts out as far as their Faith.

[/quote]

I wish there were a lot more that study their Faith.

It’s the whole “we have the holy spirit to guide us” thing.

Is it not beautifully logical and wonderful that God would leave a Church to rely on?

Well, Jesus didn’t do anything without a reason. He founded His Church and the leading of the Holy Spirit for that very reason.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.