Not by Scripture Alone

Catholic Answers ^ | April 2007 | Jim Blackburn

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

In 1947, a group of Christians in Nebraska formed a fellowship known today as the Berean Church Fellowship. The name of the group is borrowed from the Acts of the Apostles 17:11, which the group quotes on their Web site (www.bereanchurchfellowship.org): "Now the Bereans… Received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

The fellowship’s Articles of Faith begin with the following statement: "We believe the Bible, consisting of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety, is the only divinely inspired, inerrant, objectively true, and authoritative written Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

In other words, the fellowship subscribes to the doctrine of sola scriptura ("by scripture alone") and believes it patterns itself after the Bereans about which Luke wrote. Using this verse as evidence against Tradition is not really unusual; in fact, many sola scriptura adherents quote Acts 17:11 as "proof" that the Bible is the sole rule of the Christian faith. Some seem to imagine the Bereans to be a group of early Christians faithfully living according to what the Bible teaches when Paul comes along claiming to be a teacher. They listen to what he has to say but they also cautiously compare his teachings to what their Bibles say in order to be sure that what Paul is saying is authentic Christian doctrine.

Interestingly, though, a closer look at Acts 17:11 reveals that the people of Berea were not sola scriptura adherents at all. In actuality, they were primarily Jews converting to Christianity through Paul’s use of Sacred Tradition. Here’s the verse within its fuller context:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (Acts 17:10-12)

Luke’s words commend the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessalonians because they eagerly received "the word." They also examined the scriptures to see if the word was true. So just who were the Bereans? What was "the word" they received and what scriptures did they examine?

Before the New Testament

The Bereans, we’re told, were mainly Jews (and some Greeks), not Christians, and they even had a Jewish synagogue. The word they received was Paul’s teaching about Jesus, that same teaching which he sums up in his first letter to the Corinthians, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). The scriptures mentioned here by Paul are the same scriptures which the Bereans examined, the Old Testament scriptures. These were the only scriptures of the day, as no New Testament Scripture existed at the time. Most of the New Testament had not yet been written and what had been written had not yet been canonized so as to attain the status of Scripture. What we see here is a group of people being taught about Christianity by Paul prior to the existence of the New Testament. They eagerly listened to Paul while examining the Old Testament Scripture.

This all makes sense when we understand this event in its historical context. The event occurred during Paul’s second missionary journey. On his journeys Paul taught the good news of Christianity as Jesus had commissioned him to do. As a Jewish convert to Christianity himself, he knew Jewish Scripture well and he knew that it prophesied about Jesus. He undoubtedly explained this Scripture to enlighten other Jews about the truth of Christianity. These Jews would have to examine their Old Testament Scripture to see if what Paul was saying made sense. It did, and many Jews, including some of the Bereans, became Christians.

Not of Human Origin

Paul’s method was one of the ways Christianity was first taught. And Paul’s teaching is an example of what the Catholic Church calls Sacred Tradition.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. (CCC 83)

Now, sola scriptura adherents are quick to point out that tradition is condemned in Scripture. Indeed, some forms of tradition are condemned. For example, Jesus denounced a certain tradition when he said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3; see also Mark 7:8-9). In this passage Jesus was condemning a particular Jewish practice of seemingly donating money to God while in reality sheltering it from being used to care for one’s parents. This was a tradition, but certainly not a sacred one which broke the commandment to honor one’s mother and father. Jesus rightfully condemned it, but his condemnation was not meant to be applied to every tradition.

Another verse sola scriptura adherents point out is, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). Certainly the Catholic Church agrees with Paul that such human traditions are to be rejected. But Sacred Tradition is not merely human tradition. It is the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles guided by the Holy Spirit. It originated with Christ and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, hardly of human origin.

So, if Scripture doesn’t explicitly condemn Sacred Tradition, does it support it? It seems that since the Catholic Church claims that the New Testament came after Sacred Tradition, it makes sense that the New Testament would show ample evidence of Sacred Tradition. In fact, it does. Paul’s teaching in Berea as cited in Acts is one of many places where the New Testament provides evidence of Sacred Tradition.

For example, Jesus’ commandment to the Apostles at the end of Matthew’s Gospel logically assumes the necessity of Sacred Tradition:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matt. 28:19-20)

Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write down everything he had taught them. He simply commanded them to teach it. Much of this teaching later made its way into Sacred Scripture, but every bit of it was and still is considered Sacred Tradition.

Hold to the Tradition

In fact, we know that not everything Jesus taught was eventually committed to writing. John tells us as much at the end of his Gospel: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25). Some of Jesus’ teachings had not yet made it into written form by the date John finished writing his Gospel.

Turning to Luke, we see that the author begins his Gospel by explaining why he is writing it. Luke points out that others have already committed certain things to writing, and he thinks it is a good idea to write down what his reader has already been taught:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Luke 1:1-4)

Luke, then, commits to writing what has already been taught. That teaching is Sacred Tradition just as surely as Luke’s Gospel will later be recognized as Sacred Scripture.

Moving beyond the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, we find that Paul provides even more explicit evidence of Sacred Tradition in his writings. Here are three examples:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you 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).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

In the third verse, Paul speaks of Sacred Tradition as being taught both orally and in writing. The written teaching would later be canonized as Sacred Scripture, so this verse suggests how Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture.

Near the end of Paul’s ministry he instructed Timothy to carry on the Sacred Tradition passed down to him: "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14). Paul went on to instruct Timothy to pass down that Sacred Tradition to others: "[A]nd what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

Throughout history, the Catholic Church alone has continued to safeguard and teach the fullness of the Christian faith. This faith is complete only when it includes Sacred Tradition. The Catechism sums it up well:

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes. The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer." (CCC 78)

The Berean Church Fellowship and other sola scriptura adherents would do well to follow in the footsteps of the original Bereans and embrace Sacred Tradition. But of course the result would be one fewer Christian denomination and thousands more Catholics.

[af_vet_1981]

Every way, except I’m male and she’s female. Mankind is divided into two groups:

Group 1. Jesus Christ who is both fully man (Mother was human) and fully God (Father is God).

Group 2. Everybody else, who have ALL sinned.

I accept your testimony about your own sin. Do you imagine a baby has also sinned ?

[cuban leaf]

I accept your testimony about your own sin. Do you imagine a baby has also sinned ?

---

It is born into sin unless it’s father is God. But we are all victims of original sin. Just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), through one man (Jesus) each of us may find salvation from that sin.

Interestingly, In Mary’s genealogy, Adam is described as the son of God.

[demshateGod]

Just read your Bible every day and you’ll eventually come across it.

[Salvation]

Let the truth shine forth.

[Salvation]

Then why are we told in the Bible that not everything is written down?

 

John 20

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

[Salvation]

You belive in Scripture, correct?

 

Then why don't you believe this?

 

John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

[polishprince]

AF VET
The words she used were when she my soul exalts in God my saviour...If she was not a sinner she wouldn’t need a saviour. She also tried to dissuade Jesus from continuing His ministry. Mark 3:21 and then Mark 3:31. They thought He was out of His mind.

Also look at the entirety of scripture.
Rom 3:10 None righteous no not one
Rom 6:23 All have sinned and fallen short
1John 1:8 If one says they have no sin the truth is not in them

I could go on and on with many more additional verses to show the state of ALL men in sin. It is up to YOU to show, via scripture, that she is EXCLUDED from sin ...the fact is Mary was as much a sinner as I am and I as much as she. We may have/had different sins but they are sins nonetheless. She was not born sinless, she did not live a sinless life. Just because she was the mother of Jesus did not mean she had a special privilege to not have the stain of sin in her life. If that were so then ALL of the relatives of Jesus needed to be this way.

If you want to be honest all Christians should hold Abraham in higher honor than Mary Did not God tell Abraham that HE would be the father of many nations? Also it was with Abraham that God established the covenant people NOT Mary. He NEVER established a covenant with her. If anything God mentioned the covenant He had with who? It the covenant with who that Mary recognized? Abraham...(in the magnificant)
It is whose faith that was Paul (Romans) and James extolled? Marys or Abrahams? It was Abrahams. Who is explicitly called our father in the faith? Abraham. Whose children does scripture say christians are? Abrahams (Gal 3:29 as an example). Whose faith was extolled in the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11? Abrahams, along with others. It is ironic that if Mary was to have such a high place, that her faith was the model for ours, that she is to be considered the mother of the church how come NONE of these things are mentioned in scripture? Or for that matter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
All of the above is not to denigrate Mary but rather to put her life and faith in the proper place. She is no better than I, nor worse. She was honored to bear Jesus but that does not make her sinless, that doesnt make her any greater than Abraham since SHE also derives her lineage from him.

I say all this as a former RC so i am very familiar with the RC doctrines.

[Old Yeller]

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

But it contains everything a believer needs to know.

Deuteronomy 29:29

[af_vet_1981]

AF VET The words she used were when she my soul exalts in God my saviour...If she was not a sinner she wouldn’t need a saviour. She also tried to dissuade Jesus from continuing His ministry. Mark 3:21 and then Mark 3:31. They thought He was out of His mind.

F for Failure
1. False premises
2. Mixed up pronouns

[Fester Chugabrew]

I would interpret that passage not as license to invent the perpetual virginity of Mary, but as a general admonishment to the reader that books cannot comprehend or express all that Christ did during His earthly ministry, and as a specific reference to the purpose of having those things written that were written only in part. As such it tends to militate against Sacred Traditions that have no support in the biblical texts.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It would be tradition over text if the Church bound consciences to observing Easter etc. on a particular day. As it stands, however, the Church by and large has chosen freely to establish a pattern (tradition) which in turn gives visible expression to the unity Christians enjoy by grace through faith in one Lord. Now that is not to say there are no churches that make the observation of a particular date a matter of sinning or not sinning. To they extent they do this, they err.

[polishprince]

AF
You wrote
F for Failure
False premises
Mixed up pronouns

Nice dodging of the points i presented...When there is no way to answer, to offer no response, then belittle the other person...

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I’m not trying to argue that the bible is not the inspired word of God. Rather, I’m implying that throwing that word “inspired” in there has tremendous ramifications and makes it not the same as if the word was missing.

It's an interesting question. I think almost all Christians place the Gospels above the rest of the New Testament, since they contain the words of Christ.

And while Catholics and Protestants agree on the canon of the New Testament, the Orthodox Churches have a more loosely defined canon, and there are some ancient churches that regard other books as canonical, such as:

The "broader" Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of "Sinodos" (church practices), two "Books of Covenant", "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia" (Apostolic Church-Ordinances).

Wikipedia actually has a decent, if brief, history of the canon of the Bible.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Then why on earth do they teach that Mary was ever-virgin.

Mary was anticipating marriage, and if she planned to consummate the marriage, her question to Gabriel is hard to make sense of.

The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

So the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity is congruous with Scripture.

There are other points to consider as well.

"The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." The term, "overshadow," was a euphemism for the marital embrace. IOW, the Holy Spirit would enter into a marital relationship with Mary, causing her to conceive His Son.

It would be fitting then, that Joseph would then act as Mary's caretaker.

Additionally, there was a tradition of celibate marriage in ancient Israel.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

[RnMomof7]

Mark 7 1Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly,a holding to the tradition of the elders, 4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.b And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.c) 5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
9And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’

[RnMomof7]

The Church tests Sacred Tradition against the canonical biblical texts (both Old and New Testaments) and does not place Sacred Tradition over them. To the extent Sacred Tradition contradicts the biblical texts or preaches another Gospel than what the Church has received, Sacred Tradition is neither good nor necessary.

LOL...Please show me the Immaculate conception and the assumption

[RnMomof7]

In what ways are you just a fallen human being and imagine Mary, mother of God with us, was just like you ?

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Actually, scripture is sufficient.

If that's true, shouldn't Scripture say so? And if Scripture doesn't say so, how can Scripture be sufficient?

+++

I don't need a half witted, Marxist pope telling me what the Bible says.

Christ commands us to "listen to the church," and has harsh words for those that ignore the teachings of His church. But putting that aside, what does Scripture say?

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the eternal House of David:

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David." (Luke 1:32)

In the ancient Davidic kingdom, the authority of the palace majordomo, or vice-regent, was represented by an over-sized key that the vice-regent would wear around his neck. The vice-regent held plenary authority in the king's absence.

"I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." (Isaiah 22:22)

As King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, Jesus holds the "key of David," which he may bestow on His representative or vice-regent.

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Rev. 3:7)

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

Was Peter's office transferred? History tells us that it was, and so does the Bible, as Isaiah 22 shows the succession in office of vice-regents of the Davidic kingdom.

Unfortunately, Protestants generally ignore this plain biblical evidence for the papacy, reading the Bible through the human traditions of Luther and his disciples.

[RnMomof7]

You belive in Scripture, correct?
Then why don't you believe this?
John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing):"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

Want to reread that scripture ?? it does not say "traditions" or teachings" it is addressing the miracles of Christ

Jhn 20:John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

The Holy Spirit brought to the memory of the writers everything He desired to have written down..

John 14:…25"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

[CynicalBear]

Please prove that what the Catholic Church today calls tradition is exactly what the apostles referred to as tradition.