Posted on 10/21/2005 12:19:22 PM PDT by ScubieNuc
Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?
According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical. Protestantism, however, rejects Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?" The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says both to listen to tradition as well as warning about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below. In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:
1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take, for example, the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4. The Devil tempts Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen His example? The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examine God's word for the test of truth, not for the traditions of men. Therefore, we can see that the biblical means of determining spiritual truth is by appealing to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances. 2) Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. Therefore, it is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for the statement to be true. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles. 3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Inerrant Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition--for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust tradition, then Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalid. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God’s word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well? 4) If the Bible is not used to verify Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent to the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then it has no right to exist as an authoritative spiritual source since the Bible is what is inspired, not tradition. 5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of the Bible does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.
The Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? In response, claims do not make it true. Second, even if it were true, and I do not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter in Acts. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter? To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures. Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater. Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn’t, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, then neither should Christians.
...this should prove interesting
No kidding.
Do we really need to get into a Protestant / Catholic war on an open forum. Hey everyone, let's watch Christians bash each other ....
By this shall all men know that you are my dicsiples, if you have love one for another.
Sorry about the format. I failed to review it good enough. A few paragraph breaks would have made it much easier reading.
Sincerely
Would this not be more appropriate in the religion forum?
I think open discussion is good for the soul. It's good to know what you believe and why. If people want to be rude and make it a "war", then it reflects bad on them.
1Pe 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear,"
Sincerely
This belongs in the Religion forum.
Free Republic is a good place for religious discussions, but they belong in the Religion forum. This anti-Catholic article is likely to create a certain amount of message traffic, but it's still a religious topic.
Oh, I don't mind open discussions within the faith, I actually enjoy the give and take. It's more such a debate in an open forum, with non believers watching the whole thing. The Protestant / Catholic thing can be very divisive, and, whether we agree or not, those outside the faith really don't see alot of difference between the two. All they see is Christians fighting over this and that. I just hate to see any possible "stumbling blocks" thrown out to those outside the tent of faith. Those of us truely save by God's amazing grace are all family, but as they say, family fights best.
For a fascinating, comic-strip version of your article, you might enjoy this:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
Interesting how no one ever seems to address the theology of the Orthodox Church. Ignorance on the part of the "apologist"? A lot of this stuff reminds me of the old question, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
(the answer there of course is as amny as want to.)
A better example is the qualifications of bishops -- Catholic tradition prohibits marriage, while Scripture expressly requires it.
And I agree this belongs in the Religion forum.
Wow!
trying to start a war godless atheist (8^)
(no-one knows scripture, it seems save for the atheist)
"Wow!
trying to start a war godless atheist (8^)
"
Nope. That war started a long, long time ago, and the battles continue. I just find it interesting that the various denominations of Christianity find it useful to toss word bombs back and forth at each other.
The text bomb that started this thing is little different from the Jack Chick tract I linked to. I just dislike folks stirring up these battles on FR.
As for my knowledge of scripture, you're right. It's quite extensive.
Sorry, again! I messed up by not posting on the Religion forum. I agree that it would be best posted there. I assumed wrongly that I posted it correctly. Oops!
If someone knows how I can get it removed or transfered over there I would be glad to know.
Sincerely
All you need to do is send a private message to Admin Moderator, and it will be done.
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.