Entry: Sola fida and sola scriptura Saturday, May 20, 2006

I already said that it doesn’t say anywhere about sola fida in the Bible, but also, it doesn’t talk about scripture alone. As Protestants, the idea of only the Bible came as the historic confession of the Reformers, against the Catholic church which claimed scripture PLUS the church and tradition. It’s the starting point more than a proven conclusion. If you use Matt. 15 to say tradition’s wrong, that only mentions corrupt tradtion, not all tradition. If you use 2 Tim. 3:16, it says “all scripture” not “only scripture” is profitable… And 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us to stand firm and hold on to traditions, taught by mouth or by letter…. Where is the basic notion of tradition condemned (Again, Matt 15 is referring to corrupt tradition) And what did Paul mean in 2 Thes. When he said hold fast to tradition, both written and oral? We insist that the Bible is our only authority, but the Bible doesn’t teach that it’s our only authority. And here’s another interesting point. Any good protestant would say that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Bible… but 1 Tim. 3:15 says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth…


June 1, 2006   10:15 AM PDT
Here's a question i've always wonder....how can there be popes to gain traditions from when constantine legalised christianity in 313 AD? There wouldn't have been elected popes during the time of the serious persecutions of christians. And why wouldn't John become a pope since he was a disciple and lived till about 90 AD? According to record there would have been around 3 popes already by that time. So why wouldn't he have been a pope after peter was killed because he was obviously a pillar of the church? sorry random side note i've never understood.
Yes the bible talks about traditions and holding to them but those traditions are written in the bible(passover, Lords supper, etc.). What about the corrupt popes and the things they would have implemented that may not have been changed? I'm not saying all traditions are bad but many are taught by men(in many denominations) as Isaiah said in 29:13. Also God says a number of times that sacrifices from the heart is what he wants not outside rituals/traditions. It's why he yelled at the pharisees and Isrealites all the time.
May 31, 2006   12:36 PM PDT
No, he doesn't in that particular passage, but so many other places and times in the Bible, it is mentioned. I can't promise it, but I believe Jesus even says it at times.. Next, my point is that the Bible does talk about tradtion. Jesus told the disciples to pass down what they'd been taught, and they did. The Catholic church traces it's traditions back to those times. Some have changed, yes, but through the Pope's direction, through Christ. Therefore, if the Bible does mention tradition, there is no reason to condemn the traditions that exist, as many protestants do regarding Catholicism. I feel as protestants, we miss a lot of the sacredness that has been passed down through tradition in the Catholic church. I hope that makes more sense.
May 31, 2006   11:59 AM PDT
i have yet to understand what your arguement is even about with this subject. Are you saying that without traditions people are wrong? you arn't making any sense. And how do you know which tradtions are right and wrong without going to the bible and reading what was written that people should do?

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day"
John 6:40

That's Jesus speaking and he doesn't mention tradition or baptisism or works in there for enternal life does he?

Leave a Comment:


Homepage (optional)