Posted on 02/09/2015 4:37:32 AM PST by 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).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."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).
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.
That is a "reach" to say the least
There is NO apostolic succession taught in the scriptures... The apostles themselves set the conditions for apostleship, that eliminates everyone that was born after the death of Christ
The Apostles had to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ Apostles repeatedly affirmed that they were eyewitnesses – Acts 2:32; 10:41, etc. Acts 1:15-26 (v 21,22) – The one chosen to replace Judas had to be an eyewitness. Acts 26:16 – Jesus said he appeared to Paul to make him a witness -
Hyperbole is a common form of Jewish expression, and it applies here to the term, "all."
Otherwise you would have to believe that mentally retarded people and babies sin. The term "all" cannot be meant absolutely.
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No. To sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. So, there are and have been millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.Still, how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of "all have sinned?" And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is much biblical support.
The Name Says it All
And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God." (Luke 1:28-30)Many Protestants will insist this text to be little more than a common greeting of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary. "What does this have to do with Mary being without sin?" Yet, the truth is, according to Mary herself, this was no common greeting. The text reveals Mary to have been "greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be" (Luke 1:29, emphasis added). What was it about this greeting that was so uncommon for Mary to react this way? We can consider at least two key.aspects.First, according to biblical scholars (as well as Pope John Paul II), the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. (cf. Redemptoris Mater, 8, 9). In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or "Hail, full of grace." Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would be found in the immediate context. "Hail, king of the Jews" in John 19:3 and "Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting" (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with "full of grace" was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholic Answers and saying, "Hello, he who fixes computers." In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from "father" to "father of the multitudes") in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah ("my princess" to "princess"), in Genesis 17:15 and Jacob to Israel ("supplanter" to "he who prevails with God") in Genesis 32:28.
In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a "father" and "princess" of one family to being "father" and "princess" or "mother" of the entire people of God (see Rom. 4:1-18; Is. 51:1-2). They become patriarch and matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the patriarch whose name, "he who prevails with God," continues forever in the Church, which is called "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). The People of God will forever "prevail with God" in the image of the patriarch Jacob.
What’s in a name? According to Scripture, quite a lot.
St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced" in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, "graced," is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name "full of grace" and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
As was pointed out, Paul did not have excess to the new testament scriptures so he went by what he had learned from the holy spirit by reading the prophecy’s of the old testament and putting two and two together with what he was told by Peter and other eye witness`s of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Paul was also a scholar so he could talk or write all about something in which he may know less about than an eye witness who could not even relate it to others.
But the point is the early Christians did not have the Gospels , we do have them so we know much of what Jesus said with out going any where else.
Why would any one want to go to Ambrose or Clement or even Paul for that matter when they can go right to the source?
We do not have to go to
As was pointed out, Paul did not have excess to the new testament scriptures so he went by what he had learned from the holy spirit by reading the prophecy’s of the old testament and putting two and two together with what he was told by Peter and other eye witness`s of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Paul was also a scholar so he could talk or write all about something in which he may know less about than an eye witness who could not even relate it to others.
But the point is the early Christians did not have the Gospels , we do have them so we know much of what Jesus said with out going any where else.
Why would any one want to go to Ambrose or Clement or even Paul for that matter when they can go right to the source?
Some religious organizations (Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-Day Baptists, and certain others) claim that Christians must not worship on Sunday but on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. They claim that, at some unnamed time after the apostolic age, the Church "changed" the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.However, passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.
The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
Check those you question against those you don't. Do they differ? Do the contradict? Do they support?
So what did He say or do that it doesn’t contain? Please show documentation for your answer.
Please show proof that Revelation 1:10 was speaking of the first day of the week.
Wow. Talk about opening yourself up to circular logic!
LOL
Catholics believe that there are bad, man-made traditions (e.g., Sola Scriptura) and good Apostolic traditions.
Below are biblical commendations of Apostolic Tradition:
"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)"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)
"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).
"Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and teaching them everything I have commanded you." --Jesus (Mat 28:19)
"Take as a model of sound teaching what you have heard me say, in faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the rich deposit of faith with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim 1:13-14)
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:1-2)
The “good “ traditions were written down in the letters ...
The successors of the Apostles are the successors of the Apostles, not Apostles.
The successors of the Apostles are bishops.
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." --Acts 1:20+++
Additionally, the fact that Jesus, the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, who "holds the key of David," gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom," proves that Peter holds the transferable office of the vice-regency of the "kingdom," as we see the transfer of office from Eliakim to Shebna in the ancient Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22:22)
And in those Gospels, Jesus tells us to "listen to the church," and "if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
My point is that, for Luther's doctrine of the Bible alone as the SOLE or ULTIMATE rule of faith to be logically coherent, it must be contained in the Bible.
It is not.
Please show what the traditions were that Paul was teaching in 2 Thess. 2:15 with documented proof.
Please show what the traditions were that Paul was talking about in 2 Thess. 3:6 with documented proof.
What were the teachings Jesus was talking about in Mat 28:19 that were not included and please show proof of those teachings please.
What were the sound teachings Paul was talking about in 2 Tim 1:13-14 that are not found in scripture?
You would want us to know those things so we can correct our ways right? Without documented proof of the traditions being talked about which are not found in scripture we would just be taking someone's word for it right? So please provide the documentation.
I agree with 2 Timothy 3:16-17:"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
With the above, your comments communicate perhaps the following summation:
Within scriptures, are there more authoritative texts than others?"
This gets the dander of many up. For if you asked a Jew in Christ's time they would give you the answer TaNaKh in that order. The Law, the Prophets, the Writings. What did Jesus say to his disciples after His resurrection?:
Luke 24:
44 Then He said to them,“These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
Does the above declaration by Christ Jesus make the Prophets and Writings 'less' inspired? No, but YHWH established with His Finger the Law. We as Christians take pause with this approach as the majority of the Messianic prophecies are found in the Prophets and Writings. So then what?
The 'so what' is found in how the apostles presented in word and writing the command of Christ Jesus in Luke 24. Jesus focused them on the Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings) to proclaim who He was and His fulfillment of those Scriptures. As I observe this Luke 24 text and see the apostles in action, I see what Christ focused them on...HIM...as the 'pecking order' of Scriptures. Don't misunderstand, all scriptures including the 27 books of the NT are Holy Spirit inspired and we use it all to govern our lives as Christians. But keep an eye on what Christ focused His disciples on, and what they proclaimed using the OT scriptures and the Words and Actions of Christ...they all preached the Gospel of Christ crucified, died, rose again, seated at the Right Hand of the Father and He will come again.
Where does the Bible say that I have to prove from Scripture that Rev. 1:10 was speaking of the first day of the week? Your argument presupposes the validity of Luther's non-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the subject of this thread.
So you must first show me the best biblical passage that supports Luther's doctrine of the Bible alone being the sole or ultimate rule of faith.
Do Protestants have one good biblical example of Luther's doctrine, or do they accept his tradition uncritically?
+++
Regardless: The Lord's Day
Where's that in the Bible?
Where's Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
Ultimately the argument of inerrancy boils down to only one of 2 choices.
Either we place our faith in the Word of God, or in the words of man.
I choose the Word of God.
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.