Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?

The Mountain Retreat ^ | 1998 | Tony Warren

[WriteOn]

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

[Buggman]

However, the law of Christ is very different than the law of Moses.

Not according to Him:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:17-19)

Nor according to the Jerusalem church:

"Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Torah." (Acts 21:20)

Nor according to Sha'ul, aka Paul:

Do we then make void the Torah through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish (uphold, keep) the Torah. . . What shall we say then? Is the Torah sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the Torah. . . Wherefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (Rom 3:31, 7:7 & 12)

Nowhere in the NT does Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ, or any Apostle say that the Torah has been done away with or nailed to the Cross--Sha'ul says that "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14); not the Torah, but our bill of offenses against it. In the same way, he writes that Yeshua the Messiah "hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written" (Gal. 3:13).

In other words, the penalties, the curses, that the Torah pronounces against all who do not keep its every command all fell on Yeshua, being nailed to the Cross as a criminal's placard which told all his crimes. Because of this, those who trust in the Messiah are no longer "under the law"--that is, under its penalties, weighed down with the burden of attempting to keep it legalistically for fear of punishment. In a sense, we have been given "diplomatic immunity," and like a diplomat who is not under the law of the United States, can no longer be prosecuted for it.

However, just because an ambassador can claim immunity, does that mean that he should blatantly and flagrantly violate the laws of the country he is visiting? No. Neither should we who are ambassadors for the Messiah sin flagrantly--and where there is sin in our lives, we have the duty to repent of it, stop sinning.

So what defines sin? According to Sha'ul, the Torah still does (Rom. 7:7). Indeed, this is implicit in the very Hebrew words involved: Torah is the noun form of the Hebrew word yarah, which literally means "to hit the mark." Sin is chattah, which means "to miss the mark."

To one extent or another, all Christians recognize that much of the Torah is still in effect: After all, it is the Torah which commands us to "Love YHVH your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." When Yeshua said that all the Torah and Prophets hang on these two commandments, He was saying that every command of God is simply explaining how we should go about loving God and our fellow human beings. If we love our neighbor, how can we steal from him, murder him, or commit adultery with his wife?

Likewise, if we love God, should we not observe the times and rituals He told us to? Do not Christians observe baptism and the Lord's Supper out of love for Christ? Have not Christians petititioned the government in many counties to not allow liquor sales on Sunday--and in the past, to force a "sabbath" rest on Sunday--out of love for Christ?

How then can it be said that one who believes that God's Appointed Times--Sabbath, Passover, the Day of Atonement, etc.--and God's specific commands like wearing tassels with a blue thread at the corners of our clothing is somehow a legalist, while the Christian who observes Christmas and Easter (indeed, who has made them Federal holidays) and who wears a WWJD bracelet is not?

The argument is not over whether God has a Law that we are expected to follow even while we are under Grace--no one argues that under Grace we may murder freely--the argument is merely on the specific commands that make up that Torah.

[Gamecock]

Hope you're taking Dr. Calvin along for the ride and a few more photo ops ;)

You never know where Jean Chauvin will show up! I was in San Antonio a few weeks ago and felt guilty for leaving him at home when I drove by Cornerstone Church (Hagee's Palace).

[Krista33]

very powerful! Thank you for that outline!

I think a lot of this argument stems from the misunderstanding of Tradition. There's a difference between Tradition and tradition. Tradition being the oral word of God passed down through the apostles. The only scripture the apostles had to go on was Old Testament. This is only logical. Which is why as much as I study I see no way that sola scriptura works. The bible did just appear the day after Jesus was resurrected... what were the apostles doing after that? Preaching...the ORAL word of God. That is what the Catholic church teaches of Sacred Tradition. They were only forced to write things down when heretics decided to not believe in those Tradition teachings. That's why there is such a strong belief among Protestants that things were 'made-up'. Nope, they were always there, they just weren't in contention until someone decided to start a new line of thinking and the church was forced to write it down.

I have done many bible studies, all protestant bible studies. All made my Catholic faith stronger. For me, and I am speaking for me here... for me, Sola Scriptura = Anarchy. "if I don't like the way you interpret something, I'll just start my own church"... and 500 years later we have how many thousands of denominations? To interpret scripture without Tradition scares the daylights out of me. It's how we end up with 'christian denominations' saying homosexuality is okay... because they decide that the holy spirit gave them the authority to interpret scripture themselves. How scary it would be if the the American public were allowed to take the Constitution and interpret any way they want...they could start all different kinds of local governments... surely it would weaken us.

However, as logical as that all seems to me. I really don't think God wants us fighting over it. I love C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". His analogy to the "Hall" of Christians. Our goal as Christians should be, by our actions, to guide people to that hall. The doors from the hall should not be argued over lest we scare any nonbelievers completely away.

I continue to have strong relationships with my Protestant friends. We learn from each other.

[Gamecock]

Sola Scriptura Tradition and the magisterium is the Circular Position in all of this.

The Catholic church has set up a self-perpetuating system based on nothing else other than the fact than "because we said so."

[dangus]

Bible: "For thou shall worship no other god."

Worship, in the biblical sense, means to make obeisance, to beseech, or to stoop towards in a manner intended to indicate such obeisance. It does not mean to carry a statue around. Catholics do that towards no Saint, including Mary. Nonetheless, Catholics do take care not to accidentally break the first/first-and-second commandment. Lest any inclination in any Catholic's heart be to regard honor (and we ARE commanded in the bible to give due honor) as a favor, we must not honor any soul whose will may not be in full and complete union with Christ. This is why Catholics define certain deceased as Saints. It is not to deny the likelihood of great, living Christians as being saints, but to ascertain that a given departed soul's will is one with Christ.

Of course, you all would understand that if you didn't follow those who rejected Christ in censoring out seven books of the bible, and steadfastly ignoring seven others which were once censored by Luther but later restored.

[dangus]

That is, seven books, and parts of two more (Esther and Daniel).

[dangus]

>> The Catholic church has set up a self-perpetuating system based on nothing else other than the fact than "because we said so." <<

Yes! The office was given to St. Peter firstly, and to the apostles, collectively, that they DO get to say so! Jesus very plainly told Peter that he had such authority! He was given the keys to the kingdom, the mark of a regent. And the office of regent, to fulfill its function, was always handed down until the return of the King. So yes, the Pope does get to say, "because I said so." Because he has the power given to him by Christ, which every Protestant claims for himself: to declare what is bound and loosed in Heaven and on Earth.

[Krista33]

All the books of the Bible, all bibles, are there because the Catholic church weeded through all the written works that were floating out there during those times and made cross references to what did not concur with Apostalic Tradition. If what was written did not agree with Apostalic Tradition it wasn't put in the Bible. So I would have to say that, like it or not, Sola Scriptura is based on Catholic Tradition.

[Gamecock]

No, the RC church interpreted that as what Jesus said.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad Proddies were the dominant force in the colonies. If it had been RCs we'd still be hearing what a great tradition a monarchy is and sending taxes to England.

[GarySpFc]

Your argument is not with the wall, but the Word. Christianity is about faith. True faith leads to love. Love leads to obedience. Was Abraham saved because he thought about sacrificing his son, or was he saved when he demonstrated his faith by actually preparing to sacrifice his only son because God told him to.
If your son says he loves you, but then immediately and blatantly disobeys you, does he really love you?

I have no argument with the above statements, but we obviously have a different view of the object of faith...Christ. As I stated faith establishes the law, but that is not the law of Moses, but the law of Christ, AKA law of love. Do I believe in obedience? Certainly! One cannot have a faithful wife who is unfaithful. That said, you are running together the old and new covenants, and in effect denying the sufficiency of Christ's shed blood.

[Binghamton_native]

Before citing thousands of denominations as a result of sola scriptura, you might want to check this out: http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

[dangus]

Thank you, Kerryusama04, for showing how preposterous Sola Scriptura is as a doctrine.

The Catholic Church insists that Prima Sabbati means "first of the week." Kerry insists that it doesn't. And he can make what seems like a bold promise that no-one can prove that the bible makes Sunday the new Sabbath, because if anyone does point out to him where it does, he just insists, "That's not what that REEEEALLY means!"

It doesn't matter how blunt and obvious the bible states something. Not only did Jesus say, "truly, truly, I tell you this: Unless you eat of my flesh, and drink of my blood, you shall have no life within you," but it lost him most of his disciples, because they all knew what he meant. Just as the Church has held since three hundred years before the Church selected which books comprised the infallible scripture. And yet, Protestants, despite this very plainly worded, bluntly stated, passage insists, "That's not what he means!"

You insist, "That's not what he means," when he called Peter the Rock (Cephas, not Petrus, as the bible also plainly points out) apon which the Chuch would be built.

You insist, "That's not what he means," pretty much whenever the bible says something you don't like, and yet you create threads like this one to conjure out of thin air false assertions that the bible contains the doctrine of sola scriptura, despite the fact that the gospel was preached for decades before anyone wrote it down.

And, thus, Jesus, foreseeing the hardness of the human heart, gave, through the workings of the Holy Spirit, the gift of authority to one man, Peter, and to his disciples, to settle such disagreements.

So you, Gamecock, and you, Kerryusama, believe what you want to believe, and imagine that in spite of your disagreement, somehow you each have the charism of being correct in your intepretation of the bible.

Because you have a common enemy, you'll ignore these differences. But Gamecock, pay attention to what Kerryusama's entire argument is, as revealed in other threads: that your Sunday worship is REALLY teh work of pagans who tricked the Christian church into worshipping their demonic, pagan gods.

[Uri’el-2012]

All the books of the Bible, all bibles, are there because the Catholic church weeded through all the written works that were floating out there during those times and made cross references to what did not concur with Apostalic Tradition. If what was written did not agree with Apostalic Tradition it wasn't put in the Bible. So I would have to say that, like it or not, Sola Scriptura is based on Catholic Tradition.

111 posted on 08/15/2006 11:45:15 AM MDT by Krista33

and the Ru'ach HaKodesh had nothing to do with it?

b'shem Yahu'shua

[dangus]

>> and the Ru'ach HaKodesh had nothing to do with it? <<

Probably not, since Ru'ach HaKodesh sounds like a Hebrew word, and the people who selected the books to include in the Christian bible spoke Greek. But, then, I suppose, if you really expected an answer, you'd be a mensch and use English translations , rather than having fun showing off, "ooo! I know some Hebrew phrases!"

[WriteOn]

Hey cocky :)

It comes down to authority, as always. Your church was founded by a heretic. My church was founded by Jesus. Apostolic succession and all that. He handed the keys not to Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or the King of England, but to Peter -- and his successors.

What's your pastor's pedigree? :)

[Gamecock]

What's your pastor's pedigree? :)

The call of the Holy Spirit.

[Diamond]

Nor is there anything in scripture that requires the baptizing of infants, nor is there anything that really even mentions the baptizing of infants.

Conversely, there is certainly nothing in scripture that says that Baptism is for adults only, and that children should not be baptized. However, in several places in the New Testament whole families or households were baptized, which most certainly included children, because later writers such as Origen, Cyprian and Augustine confirm it as the historical practice of the Church.

Paul says that baptism is the "circumcision of Christ."

and in Him (you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11-12

Cordially,