Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 4

Immaculate Conception - detail 1

Charles Allen: But these traditions were then written down and then formed the NT.
Neither you or anyone else can give me an example of oral traditions in the church that were not written down at some point.
So that is why we are exhorted not to go beyond what is written – Paul would be looking to the future when apostates would try to bring in new non biblical traditions.

BFHU: No, Charles, all of the Oral Traditions did not get written down in time to be formed into the NT as St. John clearly says:

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book..

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

A few Oral Traditions that did not get written into the NT are;

Doctrine of Purgatory
Assumption of Mary
Prayer to the Saints
Infallibility of the Pope
Immaculate Conception of Mary
Mary Ever Virgin

Yes, what were the  Oral Teachings of the Apostles/Oral Tradition that did not get written into what eventually became the Written Teachings of the Apostles/New Testament were eventually written down. You can find them easily now in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So, it was very unwise of Martin Luther, 1500 years later, to invent a new doctrine we know as Sola Scriptura which is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the Oral Teachings of the Apostles or the Written Teachings of the Apostles.

36 Responses

  1. The sola scripture tradition is not new. The torah jews are supposed to be sola scripture. The early church fathers when debating always used the scriptures. Jesus said that man was to live by every word of God. He fought the devil with scripture alone and even your pope has recently said this.
    The apostles taught sola scripture all the time – we are to live by the sword of scripture or we have no weapon against the devil . The catholic church always uses scripture to defend its dogma.
    We can misinterpret but this does not negate the command to sola scripture.

    • I always know that you are hopelessly confused with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Church using scripture to defend her dogmas is NOT sola scriptura. Please have some decency and learn some terminologies and their proper meanings. If you can’t read or think critically, it will be good advice to enlist some help instead of scandalizing Christ and His Church by your great sins. Stop lying so recklessly and using God’s name in vain. Your Catholic wife must be sobbing for you in heaven, Charles.

      • What does you and the catholic church use to define doctrine – where are you getting it from , if not scripture – is the cc using a source which is not from God’s word .

  2. I am not interested in oral traditions that make a liar out of the scriptures that did getwritten down.It does not even hint at Joseph being married before. That is such a big item that thereis not way I can be convinced that he did.Also, Both Matt & Luke said that they had not intimate relations until after the birth ofthe baby.This praying to Mary & saints. There are a lot of scriptures that say that Jesus is the way & the only way to the Father.  He is the only mediator between God & man. Heis the gate; the door, & on & on & on.The priest #3 in that book got his eyes opened after his mother converted & talked tohim. He was “surprised” at all the things that the churches that not only were not in theBible but were contrary to what the Bible says.I just found a very interesting article that you probably wouldn’t believe if God Himselftold you. You may want to look up Revived roman Empire – ABC’S of Prophesy – RaptureReady When you reach all the choices read the small print & go for

  3. What is this infallibility of the pope stuffThat sounds like blasphemy  

    • Should we care about babblers here? Are you capable of a decent conversation or are you also a mindless and incoherent individual? Maybe we should put you and Charles together in a room and let the two of you go at each other ….

  4. If you are so happy being Protestant, why hang around here instead of keeping your happy company at a Protestant blog of like-minded folks? May be it’s because no one there can agree with the gospel according to Charles Allan either? You are just an obstinate heretic who is a great sinner.

    • You are still sound and fury signifying nothing , accusing other people of what you are doing – I am great sinner – I agree – are you now going to excommunicate me. I dont have my own gospel but try to follow the biblical gospel. If you keep on judging others who disagree with you rather than debate the points using scripture then you are in danger of judging yourself.

  5. Coming from someone who come in here and pre-judge Catholics. If you are an acknowledged sinner, then act like one. You are just so puffed up with all your nonsense as usual. So why ain’t you going to a Protestant place instead and keep misery in good company?

    • You seem to have a gigantic chip on your shoulder against protestants who are fellow christians – there are about a billion protestants if you include the eastern churches. Are you condemning them all ? Why not answer some of the questions put to you instead of giving abuse and childishness.

      • Charles: I have known you for at least two years. Throughout the whole time, there’s not a smidgen of sign that you are willing to listen or consider another point of view which is different from yours. All you do is the constant bickering against the Church with a lot of irrelevant scripture quotes. You did the same by quoting the Church Fathers without any regard for the textual and contextual evidences. You did the best thing by coming to the realization that doing all the churchy things are not going to save you. But the Devil is also very quickly trapping you in a lot of pitfalls from the worse of Protestantism. I love these fellow separated Protestants very much (but never their sins and errors) and it’s only an act of charity that I’m taking the time to correct you fraternally from perishing in eternal hell. You have had grossly violated all the Ten Commandments and the precepts of the Church. This is Lent so go and make amendment with God in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Let humility and self abandonment be your graces of righteousness during this holy season.

        • Are you saying only protestants sin but not catholics ?
          The early church fathers used sola scripture in all their debates.

          • No, my dear Charles, they using scripture is not the same as saying they were sola scripturalist. I don’t know how to make it any plainer for you.

            • So could you finally tell us where these non scriptural traditions come from – if not the bible ?? I mean give a name(s)

              • It’s no secret. They are a part of the apostolic preaching where the written NT came from. They are called the Deposit of Faith, passed on from the oral teachings of Christ to the apostles originally. I expect to discuss with Dan in detail so you can forbear with patient for a fuller exposition of it later. That is, if Dan will write back of course and ask the tough questions. If not, ask me again on the condition that you will at least listen to scripture and reason without feeling any compulsion to be bound by the answers obviously.

  6. This is my response to bfhu and to those following Sola Sriptura.

    The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

    Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

    The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

    The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

    Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

    On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

    The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

    Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

    Read more:

  7. Dan: It’s refreshing to read something well thought out and even quite reasonable. My only problem is your basic premise that only the written words (bible) are to be considered authoritative. Can you demonstrate your understanding of it? There is a gloss over the distinction between Sacred Traditions and man’s traditions but we need not let it deter us from the current discussion on sola scriptura. Thanks.

    • Surkiko puts on his ‘reasonable’ hat even though I had said what Dan had said in blog 1 but not in such a well laid out fashion I agree.
      But as I have asked you so many times can you give me the source of your ancient traditions that are not from the bible ?

  8. Charles: And I also said that until you show a smidgen of reasonableness, I won’t waste any more time with you. You can start by understanding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in good faith … maybe by reading Dan’s explanation above will help.

  9. Acts 18:24
    [ Apollos Speaks Boldly in Ephesus ] Now a Jew named Apollos, a native
    of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in
    the Scriptures.

    Acts 19:1
    [ Paul in Ephesus ] And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth,
    Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he
    found some disciples.

    1 Corinthians 1:12
    What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I
    follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

    1 Corinthians 3:4
    For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,”
    are you not being merely human?

    1 Corinthians 3:5
    What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you
    believed, as the Lord assigned to each.

    1 Corinthians 3:6
    I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

    1 Corinthians 3:22
    whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the
    present or the future—all are yours,

    1 Corinthians 4:6
    I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your
    benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is
    written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against

    Titus 3:13
    Do your best to speed Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way; see
    that they lack nothing.

  10. Paul said, “don’t go beyond what is written” in order to solve ONE PARTICULAR problem, and one problem ONLY. In this case the problem was that people were getting “puffed up” and creating their own theology, as opposed to simply following apostolic teachings. This behavior is similar to today’s protestants. In an attempt to solve these disputes, Paul instructed that it is PROFITABLE to look to sacred scripture to solve disputes. Of course this is true, but scripture is not the ONLY way to solve ALL disputes. That idea is a man made invention called sola scriptura. Sola scriptura bypasses Church authority (which gave us the Bible in the first place) and leaves theological interpretations up to private individuals. In other words, its Amateur Night theology. IAlthough its certainly possible that private interpretation can be inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is no GUARANTEE of the Holy Spirit, as there is with the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church. So, I’m going to stick with that.

    • The Magisterium must agree with scripture. It was scripture that instructed the church organisation not the church that inspired scripture. The Bible was known before the foundation of the world – before it was written down through the apostles – Christians did not wait 300 years for scripture – they had all the NT already

      • Brilliance … Putting the cart before the horse so to speak. It must be very foggy in Scotland.

        • Imagine the early christians being told to wait 300 years until the bible was ‘ready”

          • I guess in the distorted world of lunacy, one can conjure up with anything for make-believe. Why should it matter to Mr. Charles Allan if God has chosen to wait some time before the bible was ready? So you want to re-write history too? There must so many demons in you.

            • No we did not wait 300 years for Constantine to give us the Bible – it was already in circulation as soon as the NT was written . Paul did not tell the Corinthians to hide the letters for 300 years. Neither did John’s revelation get hidden for 300 years -10 – 15 generations??????
              The OT was already in circulation all over the Holy Land with the Jewish religion.

              • I’m quite tired of all this. No, Constantine did not give us the bible. Yes, bits and parcels of the NT were written and circulated over a period of time. Yes, there were many apocryphal works in circulation at the same time. Yes, an external authority (Church) had to shift through them and compile a list of authoritative and inspired works in time. No, there was no established “OT” canon for the Jews when Christianity was born. Yes, there were the Palestinian and Alexandrian traditions of the smaller, or incomplete, and larger, or complete version of the “OT” at the time of Jesus. Yes, it has been shown very demonstratively that Jesus and the Apostles utilized the Alexandrian version also called the Septuagint. No, even the Jamnia Council in cir AD 90 turned up to be so much a failed hypothesis for a place and time for a finalized Hebrew canon for the Jews. No, the Jewish bible is not the same as the Christian OT bible. Yes, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism and has it’s own authority by the Chair (Seat) of Peter, etcetera and etcetera …

                I don’t think that you are interested in facts and history. Maybe someone else can deal with you more but I am done trying to extricate facts from fictions for you repeatedly. Take care, you are still my friend in Jesus.

                • You will never convince me that Jews and Christian Jews and Christians did not have access to full scripture either by hearing the word from a preacher or reading it.
                  The Jews were taught the OT from childhood.
                  There is evidence on the Alpha course of thousands of copies of scripture even today.
                  This would have multiplied for 300 years – it was the scribes job.

                • “One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).”

    • Dr. Martin Luther and the Roman-Catholic Church both agreed that “individual interpretation” is prohibited in the Church. Dr. Martin Luther never advocated for “individual interpretation” as this is an urban legend.

      Dr. Martin Luther wasn’t the least bit secretive, he kept himself very public and thought out loud, actually seeking rebuke from his peers. He deliberately exposed himself for full judgement by fellow Church members and begged for robust debate.

      In my 36-years with the LCMS, a Confessional Lutheran instituted congregation, I have never once encountered this so called “individual interpretation” as neither an intended nor instructed doctrine of our congregations. Quite the opposite actually. Lutherans stress a need for maintaining ancient Church knowledge in or to preach out of the Hebrew and Koine within their proper context. If you aren’t actively living out your Baptism, repenting, receiving renewal through the Eucharist, and regularly attending Bible study and Worship service; then you can forget about being allowed into positions of authority within the congregation’s Office of the Keys or the instruction of others.

      “Individual interpretation” and Sola Scripture are polar opposites from the Lutheran viewpoint. Sola Scripture is God’s “Word” answering and responding to God’s “Word” without any human invention. Where Scriptures are silent, so are Lutherans.

      Though Dr. Martin Luther did continue the age old debate started by Saint Jerome over canonization; Luther’s completed Bible translation into the modern Germanic vernacular of his age didn’t subtract from the Bible at all; but Appendix (Greek: Apocryphal) the Deuterocanon apart from the Old Testament. It technically wasn’t until 1885 that professors at Oxford University, the Anglican Church, and Reformed Bible Societies made the decision to reduce the size of their Bibles to 66-books. Dr. Martin Luther died in the 1540’s so there’s a 340-year gap leading-up to the 1880’s where this urban legend falls apart regarding Dr. Martin Luther completely removing books from the printed Bible.

      The LCMS uses the ESV predominantly for now and has pushed for our own ESV Apocryphal Study Bible, so that we don’t loose our heritage with it as most of the Reformed and Anglican (Episcopalian) congregations have today. View it here:

      • Daniel Stinson: It’s encouraging to hear some positive news from a member of LCMS. There’s still a lot of work to be done but we can all look forward to the day when the Church is one, catholic and apostolic again. You don’t have to wait for the ESV because the RSV already has a CE (Catholic Edition) for sometime. Nevertheless, the old habit of calling those books removed from a Protestant bible as apocryphal works must be corrected. The Catholic Church refers to them as deuterocanonical books. Catholics also have a list of apocryphal books which are separate and distinct from the deuterocanonical books. So what’s apocryphal is not the same meaning for a Catholic and a Protestant. If you want to discuss the canon of scripture, it will be quite profitable and enrichment for the rest of us.

        • Sure, the overall Lutheran viewpoint on canonicity is whether or not it’s profitable for salvation.

          Profitable for salvation means that the content and substance of particular books/scrolls are an absolute necessity to our understanding of God’s means of grace in baptism and the Eucharist; Christ Jesus’s purpose, fulfillment of prophesy, Virgin birth, transfiguration, death, resurrection and ascension; Law and Gospel, and etc…Also, are the books/scrolls consistent in substance and content with previous books/scrolls (i.e. Synoptic or Pauline) in the New Testament or Old Testament (i.e. Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel).just to name a very short list for instance.

          Having never read a deuterocanonical book/scroll wouldn’t have any particular detriment to our understanding and interpretation as to what’s necessary by God’s will towards our being granted salvation. Dr. Martin Luther did deliberately leave the Deuterocanon in the Bible as an appendix (apocrypha), because its historic value reveals Jewish customs and traditions as they were understood at a particular time and age; or what Lutherans would refer to as tradition. While Lutherans believe maintaining an active knowledge of traditions is necessary for proper instruction and retaining adequate context; this doesn’t mean that traditions themselves are to be held equal to Scripture. There are many oral traditions passed down that are referred too negatively by Scripture, but aren’t acceptable within the Church because of their heretical and pagan nature. This doesn’t mean that we don’t need to pass down our knowledge of these oral traditions, because current generations need to have the capacity to understand what’s wrong vs. write with specific traditions. In Dr. Martin Luther’s studies under his Doctorate of Catholic theology, it became apparent to him that the Roman-Catholic Church of his day lost track of which traditions were Scriptural endorsed and which ones where Scriptural refuted. The Roman-Catholics of the 1500’s were intermixing the traditions and becoming legalistic (reverting back to Old Testament Law) rather than balancing the Old Testament Law with the New Testament Gospel. As a result Dr. Martin Luther establish a sound doctrine of Law and Gospel to prevent individual interpretations from emerging, where the two had become confused with each other in the 1500’s.

          If you aren’t aware or know anything about these links below, you can honestly say you don’t have any clue what Sola Scripture is…

          Blog: A Brief Introduction to Law & Gospel:

          View reduced version of Law & Gospel here:

          The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel by C.F.W. Walther:

          The biggest problem with the oral traditions were the fluid and ever changing Magisterium that constantly undergoes Conciliar and Papal alterations according to the residing administration. The Magisterium is essentially a living constitution, rather than a fixed contractual agreement that doesn’t change meanings. Unlike the Scriptures that have been locked and preserved for all times sake. Lutherans overall are satisfied that Saint John the Apostle, as the last surviving apostle, canonized the Gospels and Epistles. The Koine Canon was completed by the Hellenistic Empire circa. 200 BC which contained the Old Testament as we know it today; according to Saint Jerome’s accounts and research. These Koine canons inconsistently retained the Deuterocanon, which is why Saint Jerome heavily disputed their authenticity. Augustine of Hippo ultimately influenced St. Jerome to retain the Deuterocanon so not to offend the Hellenistic Judeo-Christian converts.

          Aside from the Deuterocanon, the Lutheran Study Bible indicates that Luther substantially debated James, Hebrews, and Revelation. Despite debating them against other writings from Saints of the Catholic Church whom he had read; Dr. Martin Luther went forward with their canonization in his New Testament translations, while the Deuterocanon went into a translated appendix (apocrypha).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: