Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII
By Dave Armstrong
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).
This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.
The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:
a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).
b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).
So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).
"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."
But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
You are correct that I can forgive sins committed against me. Peter, however, can forgive sins committed against other people.
“If Christ gave Peter the authority to forgive sins committed against other people as you state, it wasn’t in the verses I supplied.”
Matthew 16:18-9
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every GOOD WORK. We are saved by God's grace, called to good works that glorify the Lord and build our treasure in heaven. Faith is a verb.
Gods grace thru a kind of Faith that works, where the works are the fruit of salvation, not the cause of salvation. Faith alone, the kind that produces fruit. You shall know them by their fruits.
Matthew 16:18-19 don’t even mention sin so they can’t be the Verses.. Thanks BVB
They mention binding and loosing. Why would someone be bound and loosed in heaven?
At this point I don’t know whether to take this question seriously but I will answer it because you asked.
No one is bound or loosed and heaven, their actions are.
I would like for you to show me the same courtesy and answer my request.
Please show me verses that confirm Jesus gave Peter, or anyone else authority to forgive sins of another man and/or to forgive another man’s sin against God for God.
Thanks BVB
You said,
“there is no reference to sin”
To which I answered,
“What would cause someone to be bound or loosed in heaven”.
To which you replied.
“Their actions”.
Which I will reply,
“Do their actions include sins?”
I already answered your question.
Another non answer to the questions I asked.
I posted scripture that shows Jesus requiring Peter to forgive the sin of another brother against him/Peter when asked and how that pertains to binding and loosing.
One would think that a Catholic would have the verses I asked for at their finger tips being that would be the only scripture their confession to a priest instead of God could be based on.
I hope this conversation makes you realize you and I have the same requirement. It was never meant for just Peter, the apostles and/or their successors. We, as believers, have to forgive to be forgiven.
Thanks for the conversation. If you find the verses that will answer my questions, please Freep Mail them to me.
God bless you. BVB
“One would think that a Catholic would have the verses I asked for at their fingertips.”
I did. You choose to interpret them otherwise. I can’t help you there.
I’m not sure who you are trying to convince. The whole argument is right there. You admit that binding and loosing occurs in response to our conduct. You admit that sin afflicts our conduct and will keep us from God.
The power to bind and loose is the power to forgive sins confessed. It’s all right there.
Sorry I didn’t answer sooner.
I will make the same point I made before, You are arguing about this with the wrong person. I didn’t set this standard, God did if you believe Paul’s writings are inspired.
If I was to speculate as to why God set this standard, He wants us to live in family units when possible.
The future leaders would come from these familys. Wise in God’s ways
In both Testaments. Leave your family and cleave to your wife and become one flesh.
I am old enough to see the wisdom of that. BVB
**Sola scriptura leads to conclusions like we see here of people denying Christ’s divinity and the Trinity.**
God the Father made the body and soul of Jesus Christ and dwells in him, which is why Christ is the fulness of the Godhead bodily; the infinite God (Spirit) placing all power in him. That’s why Christ is the true God and eternal life.
You may judge that statement as being a denouncing of Christ’s divinity, but it is actually a acknowledgement of Christ’s God GIVEN divinity. Remember, “God was IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself”.
John 1:14 (the Word made flesh) is to be read with the understanding of the mystery of the Godhead, and there is a multitude of other scriptures that harmonize with it.
That verse is explaining that God’s Spirit, God’s mind, even his very righteous plan for mankind, was made audibly and visibly manifest to man, by meeting mankind on their very mortal level. The main theme repeated over and over in John is the fact that the Father (Spirit) is in the Son (flesh w/a soul, created by God), and that the Father is the source of all things divine.
Deny the trinity? It’s not hard when neither the LORD, nor even the apostles ever taught anything like the trinitarian ‘Creeds’.
A brief example of the confusion those ‘creeds’ display is shown in the following numbered lines from a posting of the so-called ‘Athanasian Creed’:
**10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.
22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.**
Eternal=begotten?? (gonna need a rubber dictionary to make those mean the same thing)
The following statement is contradictory to the verse which follows it.
**25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.**
“..I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28
And this:
**12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.**
??
So there are TWO that ARE created, and TWO that ARE measurable?? (my head hurts now)
More confusion:
**13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.**
If one is almighty, there is no need for the others. If one needs the others, that one is not almighty.
And these next ones........?????????????
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
?????????
Tell me, now who is it that is the author of confusion?
And how does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the ‘2nd and 3rd persons of God’ don’t know??)
Shifting gears:
Does sheer numbers make a doctrine true; as in millions of people and centuries of ‘tradition’?
Of all the world, only Noah’s family was saved in the flood. A tiny fraction of the population. Jesus Christ declared that the way is strait and narrow, and few there be that find it.
I ask these two questions again:
What divine powerful attribute did the Son give to the Father, if any?
If the Holy Ghost is a ‘separate and distinct person of God’, what divine powerful attribute can it give to the Father that the Father doesn’t already have?
In conclusion:
There are people that believe in sola scriptura, and those that don’t; and there are people from both sides that wrestle the scriptures to their own destruction.
Anywayzzzz, until next time, Lord bless and goodnight.
No, that is not the fault of sola scriptura. You, yourself, even said that all doctrines concerning the Christian faith must be found from Scripture. Most of the early church fathers also stated such. I could find plenty of examples that can be blamed on the idea of Papal infallibility, would you then concede that that Roman Catholic dogma is invalidated because of it?
In your first example concerning wine, I would say, "So what?". If someone wants to think they shouldn't drink alcohol and they defend their position using this for an example, I would say it's a pretty thin example, but why should it matter since it has nothing whatsoever to do with being saved? Does it? Now if that person makes it a condition to be saved, such as saying anyone who drinks alcohol will go to hell, well then I would say they cannot back it up from Scripture so they are wrong. Scripture still remains the standard for truth.
Someone who denies the divinity of Jesus, however, shows a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of Scripture since it is clearly taught in it. Sola Scriptura is still not to be blamed for this, because the term does not mean everyone can just come to their own conclusions about doctrines of the faith. The Word of God is the standard we base our understanding of the faith upon, the deity of Christ is a major doctrine of the faith just as the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is. On minor issues there can be liberty such as: should Christians go to movies? should a woman cut her hair? can women wear pants? does everyone have to wear a hat in church? - stuff like that. Even the RCC allows liberty in some areas, do they not?
And how is that known? Through tradition?
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
I was first taught the idea of the trinity probably in classes before First Holy Communion and certainly by Confirmation. I believed them then because I had no thoughts that it wasn't true. When I got older, I looked it up for myself and was sure that this is a Scriptural truth. After Bible College, I am positive it is true and have all the tools (proof-texts) I need to teach it to others. You could call it "tradition" but it is doctrine from Scripture that backs it up, so Sola Scriptura comes through again! ;o)
Actually, I’m saying that “tradition” is what taught you it in the first place and then you went to back it up (just the same as I did). Now if someone did not have this tradition at all, what conclusion would they reach if they read the bible sola scriptura, i.e. alone without guidance from the community of believers? Don’t you think, seriously, that the concept of Unitarianism would be plausible to them? I take Zuriel’s posts — he has given very detailed explanations for why he disbelieves the trinity and the divinity of Christ. I believe he is sincerely trying to know, and by going sola he has reached the non-Trinitarian conclusion
Works as evidence of faith, just as James says.
That is a Catholic understanding, not that the fruits gain salvation, but faith in Jesus, that compels one to do works that honor and glorify Him, out of love of Him and neighbor.
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)Note:
I will admit I could have phrased my post better. You didn't comment on the part I had wrong. "This was the way He chose or God chose for Him."
I should have said, "This is the way God chose for Jesus and He obeyed."
Jesus could have been crucified if He murdered someone. He would no longer be sinless and it couldn't satisfy that prophecy.
God used the hardness of their hearts without violating their free will to make this happen.
Bottom line, the scripture was fulfilled.
You have some strange theories about Christ and you could not have gotten them from a serious study of Scripture. It sounds curiously like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses. Care to make your source known?
My source is Scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised to members of His Church.
I grew up in a small town that had numerous Churches as was typical of that time including a Catholic Church. We had the 10 Commandments on the wall of most classrooms. We said the pledge and the Lord's Prayer first thing each morning at least through Jr. High. Winter break was still Christmas break including the singing of carols and a play centered on the birth of God's Son.
Spring break was still Easter along with the message of John 3:16, arguably the most quoted scripture in the Bible, For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not parish but have everlasting life.
All of this has one thing in common, the roles of the Father and Son. The father didn't die on the cross, the Son did to please His Father because His Father loves us. The Father asked and Jesus complied.
Jesus never asks us to pray to anyone but the Father in His/Jesus' name.
After school I spent 3+ years in the Navy. They last 6 months I dated a girl from that same town who had attended Catholic Schools. We got married in the Church after I got confirmed. I am sure the Doctrine of the Trinity was mentioned but it had little effect because of my well formed beliefs.
Going to confession and saying the Rosary were only done as required by a member of the Church. I stilled prayed and asked forgiveness from the Father in Jesus' name as I did before. We got a divorce after 5 years. All I will say about that is I was free to remarry which I did 4 years later.
My new bride is a Spirit filled Christians who wonders about me at times. We attended a church for about 6 months when I asked the choir director, "How come we seldom, if ever, sing worship songs to the Father or the Spirit, only to Jesus?" His answer, "If you sing to one, you sing to all." I asked him how he could make such a statement. The Doctrine of the Trinity was his answer.
That was 30+ years ago. I still read scripture with the mindset that separates them. There is scripture after scripture where that is the case. Especially the greetings to the churches in the epistles and Christ's greetings to the Churches in Revelation.
I wonder if Zeriel's thought process works the same?
I thought I was the only one who was out of step until I learned it was made by men 300+ years after the fact and they would kick you out of their church and call you all sorts of names.
When I attended the schools I mentioned earlier, I was taught that the founding fathers had come to the new world to be free to practice their Protestant Christian beliefs after the reformation. The first Thanksgiving they gave thanks to God. My children and grandchildren were taught they gave thanks to the Indians.
It shows how easy it is for the father of deception to take a truth and make it have a completely different meaning.. We now have our founders coming here for freedom of religion as if the was a shipload of Buddhists, a shipload of Muslims, a shipload of Jews, and maybe a couple of Christians.
Because I took so long to answer we now have a view as to what shapes Cronos and your thought process when it come as to how you view scripture. You both freely admit your first teachings were by the Catholic Church. I don't doubt you when you state that your later studies confirmed it. It is the mindset you learned to look at the Father and Son as one. I would hope you would show me the same courtesy.
From you, Boatbums.
I was first taught the idea of the trinity probably in classes before First Holy Communion and certainly by Confirmation. I believed them then because I had no thoughts that it wasn't true. When I got older, I looked it up for myself and was sure that this is a Scriptural truth. After Bible College, I am positive it is true and have all the tools (proof-texts) I need to teach it to others. You could call it "tradition" but it is doctrine from Scripture that backs it up, so Sola Scriptura comes through again! ;o)
From Crones
Actually, I’m saying that “tradition” is what taught you it in the first place and then you went to back it up (just the same as I did). Now if someone did not have this tradition at all, what conclusion would they reach if they read the bible sola scriptura, i.e. alone without guidance from the community of believers? Don’t you think, seriously, that the concept of Unitarianism would be plausible to them? I take Zuriel’s posts — he has given very detailed explanations for why he disbelieves the trinity and the divinity of Christ. I believe he is sincerely trying to know, and by going sola he has reached the non-Trinitarian conclusion Now as to who I think Jesus is. I think God makes it is pretty clear in Romans.
I tried to highlight the parts where God compares Adam and Christ. He calls both of them a man and describes the actions of both and the results. Adam's disobedience caused death, Christ's obedience gives life.
God is showing us cause and effect of the actions of two entities. They have to be exactly the same for these comparisons to have any worth.
What is this crazy man saying now you ask? I am saying Jesus had to be exactly like pre-fall Adam to prove God's creation, man with free will, could live a sinless life.
I have to be gone for a while, will check when I get back to see just how crazy you think I am, God Bless BVB
What if there was a wealthy man who decided the town you lived in needed a fire department. He purchased all the equipment and hired and trained his son to be a fireman.
Your house is engulfed in flames and you are trapped inside. The son comes and uses the equipment and training the father provided to rescue you from sure death.
Who would be your savior?
The son for risking his life.
The father for providing the training and equipment.
A combination of the two?
I contend both can say they are your savior as can a Father and Son in the scriptures you provided and be two distinct entities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.