Why Sola Scriptura Isn't Compatible with Other Protestant Beliefs w/ Suan Sonna
19th Oct. 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Accept the traditions - there goes, as mentioned, Protestants trying to do without bishops or Apostolic succession, but of course also Theistic Evolution.
- Jekris Certeza
- What tradition is here referring to? How does he know that Paul was referring to RC tradition? The Biblical text where Paul says tradition was clearly referring to the Gospel he was preaching.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jekris Certeza The Gospel he was preaching, no qualms about that.
How do we identify that today?
Well, as he said to hold fast to traditions, he presumed the Church he was part of to be capable to hold fast to traditions - not to abandon them and only a thousand years later have them painstakingly reconstituted by learned scholars looking through the Scriptures.
Holy Scripture has no word saying "the Scriptures will always be faithfully copied somewhere" but it has words saying the Church will hold fast to its primitive traditions.
And this means that all Protestantism is blown out of the water.
"How does he know that Paul was referring to RC tradition"
The options are:
- Roman Catholic (as said not the perversions that involve Theistic Evolution)
- Eastern Orthodox
- Coptic (also referred to as Monophysite)
- Armenian (also referred to as Monophysite, though not the same as previous)
- Assyrian (also referred to as Nestorian).
If we eliminate Nestorians and Monophysites as Christological extremes, that leaves RC and EO.
When we see the differences, between these two, EO is the only with some clearly antipapist bias (RC have Popes in Rome, Coptic and Armenian and Assyrian Churches have bishops over all other bishops, that is a similar position, at Alexandria, Etchmiadzin (I think it is pronounced) and Ecbatana (I think it was)). EO are also the only ones that say unleavened bread is "Judaising heresy" ... I think from there, RC is the safer option.
Would you pretend to Baptist continuity? That would fulfill "hold fast to the traditions" if historically true or even half and half realistic, but it cannot, since historically very clearly false. And I mean very clearly. It is more probable to say that the XXth C. saw a successful Crusade against the Saracens, than that all the centuries between Nicaea and Menno Simons saw a preserved original Baptist tradition. For the crusade you at least have Word War I on the Oriental front (Turks were a successor state to Saladin, and while French and English had forgotten about the Crusade, the English took and the French left to the English a land territory involving the Holy Sepulchre) - or Franco's Crusade against the Reds (Azaña was not a Muslim, but he was, like the Saracens, an enemy of Christendom in Spain). For the Baptist continuity, there are centuries when you have nothing at all concretely historically to point at. I have seen so many adherents of BC / Ruckmanism (or a few so often over) say "but I don't know exactly where my Baptist brethren were in the AD year 600 or between the years 550 and 650, I don't care, there must have been" - well, he didn't know because there weren't any. That blows out BC. And, as said, all forms of Protestantism except BC are theologically at odds with "hold fast to the traditions". Failing to do so was not an option for the Church that Christ founded. Not with the promise in Mt 28:20.