The Ego

“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you.”
- 1 Cor. 11:2

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
- 2 Thes. 2:15 (emphasis mine)

“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.”
- 2 Thes. 3:6

“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
- 2 Tim. 2:3


Where, then, does this belief stem from?

Toto

Sola Scriptura was the lynchpin of Luther's rebellion against the Catholic Church. He needed some basis for charging the existing church with error, and since the church embodied authority and tradition, he had to reject those in favor of something else, and that something else was scripture.

It's not exactly based on logic.

The Ego

But neither is it based on Scripture, which is hilariously ironic.

Clouseau

Are Protestants considered to be so gormless and educationally deprived that they have not got round to reading those quotes, or are they regarded as of low moral character for turning a blind eye to them?

By what logical argument do those quotes contradict sola Scriptura? Has consideration in this project been given to the use of a proper translation instead of one that is well known for its errors?

The Ego

More or less.

Just read them. Paul insists on the validity of tradition as a means for passing down the tenets of the Christian faith.

Clouseau

Both thick and crooked?

To whom? Just read them! (And try a proper translation.)

Toto

Gentlemen. This forum is not for the exchange of insults, however creative.

Perhaps Clouseau would care to explain how Protestants interpret these passages.

Roger Pearse

Luther began with the general mediaeval sources of authority; the Church, the General Councils of the Church, and the scripture.

Since the Pope was trying to burn him, he was perforce aware that the Church from time to time can fall into error.

His next view was that the General Councils were a safeguard. But at the Diet of Worms, the Papal controversialist John Eck, in debate with Luther, managed to do something horribly stupid. A century earlier John Huss had been burned by the Council of Constance. Eck put it to Luther that some of the views that Huss had held were identical with those that Luther was putting forward. Eck's intention, no doubt, was to use this as a lever to get Luther to reject what he had found in scripture and the fathers, since the whole idea that the Council could have been mistaken involved (inter alia) insulting everyone present at the Diet and the Holy Roman Emperor (who had carried out the decision of Constance). What he actually managed to do was convince Luther that the Council of Constance had erred. Eck was cock-a-hoop, and Luther left Worms alone. But he was nevertheless convinced; and after further investigation into what the Hussites had thought, realised that indeed they *had* been biblically based.

That left the authority of scripture, together with patristic interpretation of it to some degree. Hence sola scriptura.

It is a little curious to me to see atheists, the spiritual final offspring of the reformation, endorsing medieval catholic supremacy, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

People like Dawkins tend to read only the Bible, rather than the works of theologians.

So how can you expect atheists to discuss the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from a position of knowledge, if all they have read is the Bible?

Toto

I'm not endorsing Catholic supremacy. I do not recognize the authority of tradition, the church, or scripture. I'm just not sure that Luther was a big improvement.