'Sola Scriptura' is a scriptural sham.

Wither is the evidence for this position, and why do the earliest Judeo-Christian groups (namely, Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy) reject it?

Giving proof that they’re wrong to a Christian is like telling a dog it’s wrong to piss on your shoes…they don’t seem to speak english.

No need to be demeaning, it isn’t civilized.

As for the OP, I imagine that Protestants thought that the Catholic Church (the only one they were familiar with) had strayed so far from the original teachings that all they could possibly hold onto was the Bible itself and hope for the best. The transmission was pretty much entirely lost so they worked with what they knew was authentic and erred on the side of caution.

I’m sure the rise of the middle class also played a huge role in it. Under the old noble/peasant model, submission to an all-powerful Church is a natural extension of the way the world works. But as soon as you have a middle class and a capitalist notion of exchange and value the individual starts to feel he has the power of self-determination. Given that this individual could also now likely read, the Bible served as an alternate, more self-determined, authority on the subject.

Holy crap that was funny.

:cry:

Well, Judaism doesn’t care what is commanded in Jesus’ name now does it?

As for Catholicism and Orthodoxy, they believe that they are supporting the position of the scripture you quoted. Each believe they are the original and correct form of Christianity, the direct result of handed down tradition.

What is the evidence? There probably isn’t any. They just wanted to enforce their beliefs and reject others, as always.

Hi dionysus. You didn’t describe why you think the verses you quoted refute Sola Scriptura. So, I have anticipated why you might think so and suggest a few very non-exhaustive thoughts relating to the verses you quoted.

[i]“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[/i]

The ordinances referred to here are the ones contained within the Pauline writings themselves, or relate to OT ordinances that Paul typically refers to. The verse you quoted makes a statement, it does not purport to be an exhaustive list.

In every instance that Paul refers to “ordinances,” it is Scripture derived commentary about existing texts or principles within the Holy text and is therefore within the confines of Sola Scriptura. For example, we know that certain “ordinances,” not delineated, were abolished in some sense by Paul (Eph. 2:15). Other ordinances, presumably OT ceremonial laws, were rescinded (Col. 2:14). Paul even outlines a number of ordinances elsewhere, for example in Heb. 9:10, in addition to referencing ordinances contained in the OT testament laws. All of this supports rather refutes Sola Scriptura.

Interestingly, the original Greek word for “ordinances” in the verse you quoted, 1 Cor. 11:2, is “paradosis” which has a different meaning than the Greek word used for ordinance in, say, Eph. 2: 15 which is “dogma.” The Greek word “dogma” as translated in Eph. 2:15 as “ordinances” in English, has to do with certain decrees of the Apostles that pertained to Christian lifestyle generally, or when delineated in the Holy text specifically. Sola Scriptura stands.

[i]“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

  • 2 Thes. 2:15 [/i]

The word “traditions” in this verse is defined within the verse itself. It is “the word” which is the Holy text, and “our [Paul’s] epistle” which is also part of the inerrant text. Sola Scriptura stands.

[i]“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 [/i]

The “tradition received” is that which is contained within the holy text. In this verse it is most likely the tradition of “salvation by grace alone” which Paul repeatedly emphasized as supplanting OT ceremonial laws. There are numerous examples throughout the Bible of what “walking disorderly” means; although Paul does not create a demarcated list of them in this verse. He is simply stating that some “walked disorderly." This text, simple and to the point, is part of Sola Scriptura. By way of a non-Sola Scriptura example, if someone were to say that the meaning of “walking disorderly” in this verse is that some Christians were “chewing gum,” and therefore acting disorderly, then that claim would not be Sola Scriptura. Do you see the difference? Sola Scriptura stands.

[i]“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[/i]

This is simply a reiteration of the “things heard of [Paul] among many witnesses” which things are derived from the Holy text. Furthermore, the Holy text was not yet completed at the time of Paul’s writing. The Holy text was completed with the completion of the last verse in Revelation.

So, Dionysus, all of the verses you suggested do not refute Sola Scriptura. They demonstrate it. Passion

Ironically, Sola Scriptura has to be understood as a historical tool. The earliest Church didn’t reject it, because they’d never heard of such a thing. What would Scripture Alone even mean for a people who are worshiping a Christ who is only alluded to in the New Testament?
When Luther came around, it was decided that the Church was corrupt (and the Church that Luther was more familiar with probably was to some extent), and he saw the corruption as going all the way back to the students of the apostles. All the traditions, all the liturgy, the saints, it was all suspect. So, ‘sola sciptura’ is an exclusionary statement with a very particular set of things in mind that it’s excluding. Back then, it made perfect sense as a response to the Church. In a culture where Protestantism is taken for granted (even by many Catholics, when you think about it), it’s lost a lot of it’s context.
Say I were to make the following order at a restaurant, “I’d like a bacon cheesburger, just the bacon and cheese on that.” They would certainly know not to put onions and lettuce and tomato on the burger. They would probably know not to put mustard on it, though they may ask. But they would certainly NOT pick all the sesame seeds off the bun, or leave out the beef. So, even though it appears to be a totally exclusive statement, in reality it’s meant to exclude a particular list of horrible things heathens do to burgers that people living in the 21st century are familiar with. If you fast forward to the future, where it’s taken for granted that we ought to leave vegetables off of burgers, the same statement might be taken another way altogether.

Hi uccisore. You said; “When Luther came around, it was decided that the Church was corrupt (and the Church that Luther was more familiar with probably was to some extent), and he saw the corruption as going all the way back to the students of the apostles.”

Yes, I hear you. Luther did spotlight the corruption in the church of Rome of his era; a result of his experience as a catholic priest.

All the traditions, all the liturgy, the saints, it was all suspect.

True enough. My own sense is that Luther was trying to reconnect with vintage Augustinian perspectives and its emphasis on predestination, time, creation, etc. The corporate church of Rome in Luther’s time had become a regime of earthly politics. The air of Aquinas had replaced Augustine as Rome’s mouthpiece. Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle and so a quasi-aristocracy in the church had sprung up as Rome’s earlier neo-Platonic sensibilities that came from Augustine had largely disappeared. Clearly, Luther was addressing this. Kierkegaard once wrote: “God creates everything out of nothing – and everything God is to use he first turns to nothing” (Kierkegaard). Passion

I think we basically agree about the nature of the problem that Luther was facing. In hindsight, it seems to me the proper solution would have been to have found the Orthodox Church which was largely free of the problems he saw in Catholicism, and attempted to heal the Great Schism instead of making it worse as he ended up doing.

Hi uccisore. Thank you for your follow up thoughts. ”In hindsight, it seems to me the proper solution would have been to have found the Orthodox Church which was largely free of the problems he saw in Catholicism, and attempted to heal the Great Schism instead of making it worse as he ended up doing.

I understand your thought uccisore. Originally, Luther probably wanted reform within not without. It seems that he was trying to reform the existing catholic church rather than starting a new “Protestant” one. The earliest calls by Luther’s followers for him to head a new religious corporation were rebuffed by Luther; which tends to lead credence to the idea that he only wanted reform not revolution. Regardless, destiny took the latter course (Calvin and Zwingli might say it was predestined to be that way) and Luther’s providence was forever sealed.

For its part, the catholic powerbrokers of Luther’s day were threatened by Luther politically, not religiously. So, rather than reform their own apostate ways, they played the ex-communication card, all of which only hastened Luther and his followers’ resolve to secede, as well as stepping up the demise of the catholic church of Rome of that era.

Incredibly, the papal submission of Rome to Luther is prima-facie evidenced – because the catholic church of Rome promptly pursued internal reformation within itself after Luther was gone! So while Luther’s name is often connected to schism, it is the powerbrokers of rome – whose names very few people know or care to know – who would not politically concede that Luther was correct in his assessment that the church of rome had grown apostate at that time. And so, they forced Luther out only to immediately embrace his idea of reform lock, stock and barrel once he was gone. There is a huge irony in all of it uccisore. It must have been “meant to be.” Destiny is very powerful. Passion

Well, of course the flip side of all that is that Luther didn’t actually fix anything, anyway. The Church may have changed it’s particular apostate ways, but not the attitude that led to them, and really what Luther accomplished is to add individualism to the problem. Now instead of the Church selling indulgences, we each sell them to ourselves in the form of denominationalism. If he would have successfully reformed the Church from within, that is, if he would have replaced Catholicism with Lutheranism instead of just adding to it, then how long before a disgruntled someone would be nailing thesis to his door? A precedent had been set that forever changed how the west views religion- you can see it’s effects from the pulpits of Protestant Churches, all the way down to all the threads in this board, especially the ones that at first glance appear to be about atheism.