Fall 2008 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below.
NOTE: This is not the place for general discussion and questions. Go to the foyer for general discussion and refer to the FAQ on the right for question.
Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The next session will be posted each Wed.
_____________________________
What is Tradition? Why does the Roman Catholic Church reject Sola Scriptura? Why did the Reformers reject the absolute authority of Tradition? Is Sola Scriptura to be blamed for all the separation in the Protestant Church? Can’t I just study the Bible on my own and let the Holy Spirit guide me to all truth? This lesson will center on the doctrine of Christian authority. Here, focus will be on the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura as compared to the Roman Catholic doctrine of dual-source authority. The student should become aware of the arguments put forth by both Roman Catholics and Protestants with regard to ultimate authority. While this lesson should provide the student with a solid defense and a greater appreciation for the doctrine of sola Scripture, it should also give the student a greater appreciation for the role that tradition has to play as an authority (albeit a fallible authority) in the Christian life. In the end, the student should understand that that Protestantism rests on the bedrock of the doctrine of sola Scripture, that the Scriptures are our final and only infallible authority in matters of faith and practice.
Is Scripture all we Need? [8:42m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What are the Arguments for Sola Ecclesia? [17:44m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What are the Arguments Against Sola Ecclesia? Part 1 [21:08m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What are the Arguments Against Sola Ecclesia? Part 2 [18:45m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What are the Arguments for Sola Scriptura? [13:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
September 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
It’s amazing to me how relevant this information is today. I find myself a defender of Sola Scriptura. Many tend to believe that their pastors have final authority. I am also greatly disturbed by the number of Pastors that compel their members to obey them without reservation. I see elements of Sola Ecclesia in many churches today that are not apart of the church of Rome.
Am I the only one that finds this disturbing, dangerous and deadly?
September 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I beleive in Sola Scripturia. but what about the times we are impressed upon by the Holy Spirit? If we ignore the Holy Spirit might we not become like the pharissees. I have known many times when the Holy Spirit compelled me to deliver the Gospel to someone, most recently a young lady accepted Christ when I obeyed the Holy Spirit.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
B & H Session 2, Fall 2008
Marsha Johnson
Question 1 Are sermons and evangelistic crusades Traditions?
Based on the question’s definition of traditions as “simple summaries of the Gospel,” I would say yes if they five the Gospel message.
Question 2 RC’s find living authority attractive, why?
I believe the RC’s find the “continuous” nature of their church and its history valuable in light of todays constant change. They do not have to contend for their faith. The thinking & discussing is done by qualified authorities.
Question 2 b. What is the danger of this?
The dangers have already happened several times in the RC Church history. The Magisterial Authority is too far from the person in the pew. Gross heresies have occurred. For example, the mixture of witchcraft & religion that is occurring in the Guatemala church; and sadly, the abuse of children in the RC church care in Canada and in the US.
Question 3 (I will give it a try) Sola Scriptura.
The concept of Scripture being the only infallible source for matters of doctrine is in the NT (1Tim 1:3-4, etc!)
“anachronistic fallacy” I don’t believe that Sola Scriptura is a contemporary articulation. I see no difference between the phrase “Sola Scripture” and the designation of “Trinity” for example. The RC Church states “The faith of all Christians rest on the Trinity.” (Article 2, II, section 2, Paragraph 2, # 232). The crux of the argument, I think, is in Scripture alone as the only infallible authority.
“tradition” 1) The RC interprets tradition to mean in Article 2, II, 81 & 82 of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” ““Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit” “And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.” “82…does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” 2) circular argument? See above Anachronistic fallacy.
Question 4 How am I frustrated by the practical disunity in the Protestant Church today?
Yes! I like this question! I really dislike hearing Christians bad mouthing other believers. I believe it is a Church sanctioned sin and we will be held responsible for this teaching. I really appreciate the irenic manor that C. Michael is trying to present this information to us. I am not opposed to Traditions that my church teaches, but I also recognize that they are not essential. Scripture is essential. If other Christians include the Deuterocanonical Books, I do not think it is important, I just agree to disagree on their canonisity. (Postmodern???)
Question 5 Does disunity between RC & P’s need to be solved?
No, I believe it can’t because of our humanity (sin). I wish we would stop ongoing criticism. I wish we were One Body. I look forward to the time when we are!
Question 6 Is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura abused?
Time for definitions. Tradition is all the stuff not in the Bible, often claimed to be passed down from apostles. Solo Scripture is only the Bible is used. Sola Scriptura is the practices and beliefs of our faith are based mainly on Scripture; Scriptures trumps the Bible. (Thanks Mike L).
Now, I believe that Sola Scriptura is supported both in the Bible and in the writings of the early church fathers. (Timothy, etc) We are the “salt of the earth” (Matt 5;13) we are to use our minds (J.P. Moreland). We are to search out all learned Christian sources of reason to understand our faith. I believe we need to do this in a loving, irenic way, always mindful of our own sin. (Matt 7:13) So, some denominations and non-denomination churches do, some don’t.
Question 7 Does Bible support Sola Scripture or Dule-Source? Sola Scriptura.
Question 8 Most Challenged my thinking?
This was a hard lesson for me. I do not oppose the Roman Catholic Church. I am now reading their Catechism, 756 pages of it! I choose to disagree with their definition of Tradition as it relates to the organizing of the Church. Nevertheless, I believe they are Christians.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
1. Do sermons in evangelistic crusades and Sunday sermons qualify for traditions?
My first reaction was to say “no way!” I didn’t want to include every crusade and sermon in the traditions. I don’t agree with every sermon I hear for some sermons can be mainly opinion with a few verses taken out of context for support. There are also some crusades that I’ve heard of or seen that I do not support and will not agree to include them in traditions. However, when traditions are defined as customs, thoughts, and belief systems, then I see that many sermons are included in traditions. Not all sermons and evangelistic crusades are “simply summaries of the Gospel.” If they are truly in-line with the Gospel and supported by Scripture, then I can agree with them being included in our traditions in the sence of customs or belief systems.
2. Why do you think RC find it so attractive to have a living authority other than Scripture that authoritatively pronounces on matters of faith and morals?
I think it makes you feel like someone is looking out for you; that there is someone living today that knows what is happening today.
What is the danger of this?
I think the danger can be that you begin to depend on that person instead of on Christ. You can become out-of-touch with the Bible and with the early-church. I was just thinking that what would the apostles know of the wars that we have today and the terrors of the Holocaust and bio-chemical warfare. But then I realized how silly that sounded because there were all kinds of wars in their time and there were people burning children as sacrifices to idols and all kinds of terrible things.
3. How do RC commit this fallacy when they 1) interpret the word “tradition” in Scripture and the early Church fathers and 2) when they demand that Protestants find and articulation of sola Scriptura in Scripture or the early Church fathers?
No one is going to find the phrase sola Scriptura in the Bible. The RC are refusing to accept something that wasn’t an issue or hadn’t been pressed as an issue in the early Church. There were a lot of things that weren’t concretely layed out, but the Church dealt with the issues as they came up. The word “teachings” is used more often than “traditions” in the Scripture. The “teachings that were passed down” or “hold to the teachings” etc. The model that the early Church gave us was sola Scriptura. They refered to the Scriptures and they refered to Christ’s examples. Then the Church refered to the apostles examples for even Paul said to watch him imitate Christ. But these teachings did not stray from Christ’s model. Christ even refered to the traditions in the culture and the OT. We’re not enforcing a model on the past. We’re using the model they gave us.
4. How have you been frustrated by the practical disunity in the Protestant Church today?
The disunity is one of our biggest discreditors. People look at the Church and see us fighting amongst ourselves. They feel like we don’t know what we truly believe or they think how can they have it right when they keep changing. We’re supposed to be living at peace with each other. We’re supposed to be working together. As long as we agree on the basics of the Gospel, I don’t see a need for all the denominations. I had a “friend” become angry with me because I went to the mission field with another denomination (within the evangelical/protestant church). They told me that I was wrong. I told them that I was going to share the Gospel and the freedom it brings, not to discuss doctrine. Needless to say, that answer didn’t make them happy either. Then when I went overseas, to my dismay, I found that in a small mountain village with around 500 people a Baptist and a Nazarene church. Why?? There is no need for this!
5. Do you think that this disunity needs to be solved? If so, how would you suggest the Protestant Church create unity, and how absolute should this unity be?
Well, in a dream world: We should all unite under the one denomination of the Protestant Church. We should preach the Gospel. We should unite our mission organizations under the Protestant Church. The funds of all our churches together would be able to reach so many more. If we could stop judging each other based on our denomination that would be great too. What is the use of that anyway? “oh, you’re a Baptist.” or “oh, a Nazarene, huh?” Stop judging! And love each other!! This is what I’m talking about–let’s get back to the basics and stop bickering about all the things we aren’t going to know for sure on this earth anyway!
6. Do you believe that the doctrine of sola Scriptura has been abused in the Protestant church? Give examples.
I think that sometimes the PC deems itself all knowing and good, but then it sends a judgment upon those outside its doors. The Truth is in the Word. The Truth is there, but how we speak it to others or how we act it out in our lives–our traditions–are sometimes not always the best ways. The Bible speaks about “shunning” people who live in continual sin. “Shunning” is not used as an acceptable method of discipline in my church. We must continue to love them. “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, right?
7. Do you believe that the Bible supports the sola Scriptura theory or the dual-source theory more?
Well, I already answered this one above. I believe that the model in the Bible is sola Scriptura.
8. How has this lesson most challenged your thinking?
This lesson challenged me TO think. Sometimes I just ignore what’s happening or assume that I know what I believe when I haven’t really thought about it.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
1. Yes i would say so. It may be a case of the message vs the method. The message is the Gospel, how it is transmitted is the method. Which one is the tradition? The question may be is the Gospel Tradition or is the Method tradition? Perhaps both. I would say the Gospel never changes, our methods of presenting it have changed over the centuries.
2 I find it attractive in that there is one final voice for matters of interpretation. There doesnt need to be 1000 different churches and denominations. There is more of a perceived unity in the RCC. Also it means I have to do less personal study of scripture, i can have someone tell me what to do. Im lazy and that appeals to me.
2a The obvious danger in this is that man is fallible and will lead me into error.
3a. I think that accusation would be better leveled at SOLO Scripture. Certainly the early church did not have the entirety of scripture, yet as it has been pointed out, sola scripture does not deny the importance of tradition.
3b. Not sure but it think the same accusation they make against protestants in the first part of the question can be made of them when trying to defend such things as apostolic succession, Mary worship and their use of Tradition, ect. . The question becomes; Do the beliefs and practices of the early church support their current doctrine?
4. All the time. You cant turn on the TV and not be embarrassed by what you see done under the banner of Christendom. Its been my experience that churches stress different aspects of the faith. Reformed Churches vs Free will vs charismatic vs baptist. Seeker sensitive vs liturgical. Its crazy how many different churches have different messages. Usually lost in all of it is what is of first importance…Christ Crucified.
5. It will be solved when Jesus returns. Until then i think there should be grace in the non-essentials and unity in the essentials…of course everyone will argue what is essential! Again, i think the focus should be on the Gospel.
6. I think its easy to make sola scripture SOLO scripture. We love to throw bible verses at people as if it will somehow solve all of lifes problems. What I have taken away from this study is that scripture is not the only authority but the only Final infallible authority. I once heard someone say that we worship and even Idolize the bible…ive had to think if thats true or even possible.
7. I believe the bible supports sola scripture, however there is more of an appreciation for tradition that i had realized.
8. The lesson has challenged me to think about the battle lines of the reformation. What the issues were and are today as well as what I believe and why I believe it.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
1. Sunday sermons and evangelical crusades are tradition in my opinion however they are not God given tradition that the apostles were passing on. I think that answers the question
2. Well if you have one then you can just go ask the guy, “hey what does this mean” not to mention that this gives hope that humans can reach such an understanding. The danger is that this person is living so that means he is a human with emotion and bias and other things that if accepted as truth then they can ruin good scripture exegesis.
3. Roman Catholic apologists often accuse Protestants of holding to the “novel” doctrine of sola Scriptura which was not known until the sixteenth-century. Is this true? Explain.
I think that the Jesus and the apostles were Sola scriptura people so no I don’t think it is “novel.”
The interpretation of the word Tradition is not the same tradition that the RC’s use today. If it was Jesus would have been a pharisee, because that was the tradition at the time.
If we had to find an articulation of every term we use in scripture. There is no rapture then.
4. I am so ticked at the disunity in the church. The answer though, I feel, is not to unify under a figure head, it is to unify and agree to disagree on non essential theology.
5. I would create unity by agreeing to disagree on non-essentials. I think the disunity should be solved absolutely. The unity would only be held together by love so therefore it would be a direct representation of the state of the church
6. I would say that everything that can be abused has but I don’t really know of any examples :/ .
7. Sola Scriptura is absolutely supported in the bible in my infallible opinion.
8. I didn’t have any reason behind the RC view and know it makes since at least logically. I knew they weren’t stupid, but I didn’t know why they weren’t
.