Subject: Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
Bible Note: You wrote: "The bible came out of the traditions and the traditions out of the bible." That makes no sense. One or the other has to be true, or else they have a common source. Your error is in stating that there are two traditions, one oral and one written, both with equal weight. The classical Protestant understanding is that there is ONE tradition, first oral and then written down as an infallible standard for the post-apostolic church. You wrote: "Like it or not, you have your own traditions, built on the doctrines of the reformists and their successors." Of course we have traditions. The question is which of all the traditions claiming to be the apostolic one really IS the apostolic one. You wrote: "Your stand, by implication claims that after establishing his church, God allowed it to be misled for fourteen centuries." Red herring. You yourself claim that the Church was misled, or else you would be a Roman Catholic and not Orthodox. The Reformers did not hold that the RCC had been wrong for fourteen centuries, or even that the Church had abandoned all sound doctrines. What the Reformers stated is that gradually the church, in establishing itself as a source of new revelation and new traditions, had gradually abandoned the apostolic traditions. In other words, the church is not infallible (if you think that it is, please show me where the Bible says THAT), and a series of errors and setting up a second tradition alongside that of the apostles is what led to the Reformation. You also need to keep in mind that the doctrine of sola Scriptura did not begin with Luther, not did its recovery begin with Luther. Check out figures such as Wycliffe and Hus. God has preserved His church since its founding. We can clearly see from church history, however, that at no time has the church been free from the possibility of error. --Joe! |