Posted on 09/11/2006 12:59:03 PM PDT by topcat54
About ten years ago I wrote an article on the topic of Sola Scriptura. It was a response to former Protestants Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism.[1] Since then, the article has made its way around the internet. It was never meant to be a comprehensive study of the subject. Since I had been raised Roman Catholic, I was responding to some of the arguments raised by the Hahns as to why they became Roman Catholic. In the final analysis, it all came down to what would be used to determine the basis of the Christian faith. It used to be that I could argue with a Roman Catholic based on the Bible. This is no longer the case. The new tactic reminds me of a story I heard about Allen Kennedy (1894–1961).[2] While dealing from the top and bottom of a card deck was common among magicians, “the center deal”—the holy grail of card tricks—was nearly impossible. It was the stuff of legend, and Kennedy could do it.
Debating with a Roman Catholic is like the center deal. When an appeal is made to what the Bible says, today’s Catholic apologists pull two cards from the center of the deck: the views of the early church fathers and church councils. No matter how compelling a biblical argument is formulated, it is always overridden by these two trump cards. This was my experience with a debate I had with a Catholic apologist on “TruthTalk Live,” hosted by Stu Epperson, Jr. Each time Stu and I would point to a series of biblical texts in support of a doctrine, we were told that this was just our opinion. The early church fathers taught something different. And if they weren’t enough authority for us, the church councils had spoken as well.
It’s almost impossible to win a debate if there are multiple sources of authority that make up one’s arsenal. Mormons not only use the Bible, but they can appeal to the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and their own concept of Mormon Church councils. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a little easier to deal with since they believe the Bible, “as correctly translated.” I’ve used their New World Translation to show that their doctrines cannot be supported by their own translation.
Roman Catholics notoriously equivocate on the definition of “tradition” by reading into Scripture an already formulated Roman Catholic doctrine. When it is pointed out that Jesus rebuked “some Pharisees and Scribes” who accused Him of transgressing “the tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:1–2), we’re told that Jesus was only “condemning the sectarian traditions of the Pharisees alone, which had no binding authority over the Jewish people as a whole.” How does a person know what’s sectarian and what’s authoritative tradition? For a Protestant, it’s quite simple: Sola Scriptura. But this isn’t the case for the Roman Catholic. He or she must wait to make a determination on these points.
Here’s one argument I found interesting. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus gives us the famous “Golden Rule”: “Therefore whatever you want others to do for you, do so for them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The Roman Catholic apologist I debated explained the verse this way: “Here, the Lord is directly quoting, not Scripture, but an oral tradition of the famous Jewish rabbi Hillel, who also taught (a generation before Christ’s birth) that this maximum sums up the Law and the Prophets. Thus, Jesus is drawing from oral, rabbinical tradition, not from Scripture alone.” There are all kinds of things that Jesus said that aren’t found in Scripture. His words are Scripture. The truth of the Golden Rule resided in the mind of God long before it found its way into the Talmud. Jesus also quoted common expressions of the day (Matt. 16:2–3). They are Scripture because Jesus used them for His own purposes. This is true of all Scripture, even the words of Satan.
The biblical authors, as “moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21), used numerous “sources” to communicate God’s redemptive message. To equate what men moved by the Holy Spirit did to the opinions of the early church fathers and church councils is reading Roman Catholic doctrine into the Bible.
1. Gary DeMar, “Denying Sola Scriptura: The Attempt to Neutralize the Bible”
2. Karl Johnson, The Magician and the Cardsharp: The Search for America’s Greatest Sleight-of-Hand Artist (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2005).
Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.
Permission to reprint granted by American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.
Perhaps the author's real problem is that he is trying to "win" debates.
Could be. There seems to be no shortage of folks that will give him the opportunity.
placemarker
As a person raised Jewish, I would note that "oral law" disussed above was believed to be just that, oral law, not merely "tradition."
To over-simplify, it was believed to have been given directly from God to Moses, but intentionally not written down until the diaspera made it necessary to be written for safe-keeping.
(More of a point of order than a disagreement.)
No kidding. We had what - three, maybe four? - threads from Catholics arguing this very topic just in the past month.
Which is pretty much what a Catholic means. Doctrine given by Jesus to the Apostles, and taught by them verbally to their successors, but not necessarily written down by them or their scribes in the Gospels. St. Paul says this exactly and precisely (in a verse that the "sola scriptura" types always seem to miss in their little "collection of Bible verses" style proofs).
What is that St. Paul quote?
Reading Galatians tonight, and he would seem to be saying the opposite.
I would also note that Christ pretty-well rejects the idea of non-written law.
Second Letter to the Thessalonians:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2:15).
Note that "word of mouth" comes FIRST in the quotation, with the written testimony taking second place.
Where in God's name do you come up with THAT notion. ALL of Christ's teaching was "non-written". He wrote NOTHING. The only written testimony was that of his Apostles, and that written testimony was but a minute fraction of his total teaching.
St. John says so explicity.
"Which is pretty much what a Catholic means. Doctrine given by Jesus to the Apostles, and taught by them verbally to their successors, but not necessarily written down by them or their scribes in the Gospels."
Is this how praying to Mary is defended?
They were written down...What was written to the Corinthians likely was not written to the Ephesians...The Ephesians were preached the message but didn't have it immediately to read...
I am perfectly satisfied that everything God wanted Paul and the rest of the apostles to preach and teach to His church was recorded, and presereved...
Of course there is...Jesus said "I" am the way and the truth and the life...
Paul said avoid the traditions of 'men' (that's your tradition)...And Peter says the scripture is of no private interpretation...That includes your Magisterium...
Thank God He preserved his word so the light of the glorious gospel would shine thru...Because if He didn't preserve it, we wouldn't know about the threats of men's traditions and the private interpretations...
Catholics don't pray to Mary. They ask Mary to pray for THEM.
Is that why the Protestants are constantly changing (and disagreeing) on what Christ's teachings were---even WITH it supposedly "all written down"?
Not exactly no. He didn't exactly extablish Rome as the collection point of all traditions nor did he describe this mystical set of traditions as something that was completely extra biblical nor did he ever mention anything about a pope.
Nope...Like the Catholic church, some Protestant churches find things in the bible that they like, then try to make the rest of the bible line up with what they chose to believe...
But they all have one thing in common...They either add to, or take away from the scripture to justify their doctrine...
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.