judge

But are atheists endorsing such?

I do think Totos brief reply makes a lot of sense though. Sola scripture in the sense that we have seen it springs from protestatism which was a reaction against the excesses of catholicism, wasn't it?

The Ego

I'm not 'endorsing' it; I reject all things theological. I'm simply pointing out that the Catholic interpretation is correct and the Protestant one errant, insofar as nothing in their Scripture supports utilizing it alone.

judge

But is the Catholic one correct?

It seems hard , to me, to see them endorsing the approach found in , say, 1 John 2:27

27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him

This encouragement that each individual should discern for him/herself what is correct is not encouraged by an institution that damned those who would not adopt its creeds and join it's club

The Ego

It's an obvious contradiction. Paul (and whoever wrote the Pastroal epistles under his name) supported the validity of tradition. The author of the Johannine epistles, to the contrary, did not. Let the believers sort it out.

I would like to point out, however, that you quotation assumes the addressee to have already been a believer, as evidenced by "the anointing you received from him" - it's past-tense. But it hardly matters to me.

judge

Yes , however apparent contradictions are not always so.

They were encouraged to follow the advice of others in order to grow independent and think and discern for themselves.
This idea is evident in Paul and John. But religious institutions are loathe to encourage this sort of thing too much.

Clivedurdle

Not sure if the tradition I was brought up in - pentecostal - is actually sola scriptura - because they believe the baptism of the holy spirit means you have god telling you stuff directly - ie authority problem sorted!:devil1:

Clouseau

That is incorrect, as it happens. But that is not the fundamental reason for sola Scriptura. This tenet is merely a statement of preference, not an argument per se. It has as much validity as the Islamic preference for the Qur'an, the Sikh preference for the Guru Granth Sahib, the communist preference for the works of Marx, the Roman Catholic preference for those they describe as 'Early Fathers'. In other words, certain people declare a preference for a certain deposit, they exercise a basic human right, and others try to tell them that they have no right to make this particular choice. This suggests to me that the Scriptura that these people favour must have something interesting about it.

Roger Pearse

Just my habit of reading what people actually write, as opposed to what they think they write. I found myself wondering whether there was anything in Toto's reply that could not have been written by the most Ultramontane Catholic.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Timetospend

Not sure why anyone would use these verses as contradictions to sola scriptura, even though I am not a fan of Luther.

For the first three, Paul is likely simply speaking of the teaching that he provided when he was with them. For the Thessalonians, with only three weeks of Paul's actual presence, there were not too enough time to establish traditions, as such. (One can probably debate if these were Jewish or apostolic teachings/traditions. Louw/Nida suggests "to instruct" as a way to translate the word).

Anyway, I do not see sola scriptura as contradicting teaching or instructions. The problem that Luther encountered (again, I am not a fan) is that the Catholic church had interpreted scriptures whatever way that it wanted and added greatly to them. Since there was not any reason to believe that these interpretations/additions were acturate, he tried to reset Christian teaching back to the original using the only tool available.

Anyway, I fail to see reasons for interpreting these verses as a contradition. Certainly, at most, this is only one way to interpret them.

Thanks,

Doug Shaver

As with everything else scriptural, that depends entirely on how you interpret the scriptures. Those opposing sola scriptura have their proof texts, and those supporting have theirs.