Posted on 07/11/2010 10:58:32 AM PDT by NYer
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 Thessalonians 2:15
According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.
The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:
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 perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]
According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.
Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.
St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).
Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]
Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "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] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:
...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]
Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.
Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.
As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]
This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.
Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.
mega dittoes. “Tradition” is a word used to justify the Roman Catholic Church adding anything they want to Scripture. There is no warrant for using Tradition. There are far too many pagan “traditions” that are contrary to Scripture - for instance, Immaculate Conception, and the exaltation of Mary. No way that can be justified!
Some “Christian” denominations favor a quaint “tradition” of handling poisonous snakes. Do you subscribe that particular practice or do you pick and choose?
In Luther’s German translation of the Bible, he took Hebrew, James, Jude and Revelation and placed them at the end of the New Testament. He categorized them as inferior to the rest of the Bible. He also had done this with the seven Deuterocanonical Old Testament books. (Until recently, the Deuterocanonical books called "apocrypha," were still in many Protestant Bibles, but in a separate section at the end.)
The book of James contradicts Luther’s principle of Justification by Faith Alone. James 2:24 says "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Rather than change his theology, Luther just denied that, James the Apostle, was the author of James and removed it from his canon.
In his preface to James he claimed,
"But this James does nothing more than drive to the Law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the Apostles and thus tossed them off on paper…In a word he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task."
In his preface to Hebrews, Luther said,
"We should not be deterred if wood, straw, or hay are perhaps mixed with them [precious notions], but accept this fine teaching with all honor."
( Luther’s works. Volume 35 Word and Sacrament I, pages 395-397 ed. E.T. Buchman [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960.]) In Luther’s commentary on Revelation he wrote, "Everyone may make up his own mind as regards this book. As for me, I have a personal aversion to it and that is enough."
In another translation of Martin Luther’s writings, "Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings" Dillenberger, page 35, we read in the Prefaces to Luther’s German Translation of the New Testament in 1522 in regard to the epistle of St. James:
"Firstly, because in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his son. St. Paul, on the contrary, in Romans 4:3, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, by his faith alone, the proof being in Gen. 15:6 which was before he sacrificed his son. Although it would be possible to save the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer Moses’s word in Gen. 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This defect proves that the epistle is not of Apostolic provenance."
(Martin Luther, "Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings" Dillenberger, page 35)
Here Luther denies that the epistle is inspired because he considers it contradictory to the Word of God claiming it is in direct opposition to Paul. Also he mentions the epistle's "defect." So much for biblical inerrancy. But his dislike of this God inspired epistle becomes much clearer in the next quote. Writing once again of James:
"In sum he wished to guard against those who depended on faith without going to works, but he had neither the spirit nor the thought nor the eloquence equal to the task. He does violence to scripture and so contradicts Paul and all of scripture. He tries to accomplish by emphasizing law what the Apostles bring about by attracting men to love. I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible."
(M. Luther, same book mentioned above, page 36) Luther challenged an Apostle in such a crude way and said such insulting things about James’s ability to write (which was guided by the Holy Spirit.) Consider the question, that if even Luther couldn't recognize the contents of the Bible, then how could Sola Scriptura be considered a valid and workable theory ?
Catholics used human reasoning in determining the canon, but Catholic theology allows for and believes that the Holy Spirit guided them with grace in their infallible pronouncements in this all important matter. Protestant theology disallows such infallible guidance for Catholics as well as for themselves. Without the aid of God's infallible grace it would be impossible to judge supernatural things, that is, that this is the written Word of God, with just natural means.
http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical2.html
Excellent post.
He certainly appealed to that as much, if not more, than to Holy Scripture. There is no conflict, of course; because everything he commanded the churches to do and to not do was in accordance with Holy Scripture; both the existing and yet to be completed Scriptures.
If all the answers were contained in the Scriptures, why did not Paul do like a good sola apologist and give them a list of Bible verses? It sure would have saved him a lot of time and effort; to say nothing of grief.
And, of course, the scripture to which Paul was referring to when he wrote Thessalonians was the Old Testament, as there was no such thing as a “new Testament” in the Bible when Paul - or any of the apostles for that matter - were writing their letters and apologia to the church and for Christianity.
Paul was a Pharisee, so when he’s writing of “traditions”, he’s not appealing to the traditions of the RCC. He’s appealing to the teaching traditions of the law and prophets as interpreted by the apostles - all of whom were Jews.
Modern interpretation places the church and these letters into those traditions, but they were not there when Paul was writing to his churches.
Where is that in Scripture?
Book of Popman: Chapter 1, verse 15
All kidding aside. That statement is an opinion based on reading the multiple Catholic threads on FR as well as knowledge of the Catholic Church.
Since I have outed myself as a non-Catholic. Here's a question for you
Does the Catholic Church recognize that my personal belief in the Lord Jesus Christ alone grants my salvation outside the Catholic Church ???
Sarcasm is cloaked aggression. That is a sin.
Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
You quoted a question I posed to freeper popman.
Oops
But you still haven’t addressed this specific Scripture — John 21:25:
Of course not! They were commanded to preach the good news, not write it down.
It was later that all these letters were gathered together.
Precisely! The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I).
What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."
The Bible gives us clear "traditions" to uphold, baptism and communion
These are commandments, not traditions.
Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
REVELATION 22:18"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Martin Luther had developed his theory that only those books that taught his Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone should be accepted as part of the canon. However, he didn’t work out this theory until after he had lost a debate with a Catholic (either Cardinal Cajetan in 1518 or Johann Eck of Ingolstadt in 1519 AD), when 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 was quoted to refute Martin Luther’s "Faith Alone." His subjective standards were also the given for his reason for claiming that Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation were also not to be considered as fully the Inspired Word of God. (Although, evidently the Lutherans of the 17th century added these NT books back into their canon.)= INSANE!
In Luther’s German translation of the Bible, he took Hebrew, James, Jude and Revelation and placed them at the end of the New Testament. He categorized them as inferior to the rest of the Bible. He also had done this with the seven Deuterocanonical Old Testament books. (Until recently, the Deuterocanonical books called "apocrypha," were still in many Protestant Bibles, but in a separate section at the end.)
THIS IS NUTS!
http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical2.html
“Jesus did many other things as well, ‘IF’ everyone of them were written down I SUPPOSE that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”
It's pretty much evident we have been given all we need to know in the scriptures...which does not mean we can't glean here and there from other works read...but the scripture is the final authority.
But I understand why catholics believe their writings/traditions of old are equal to the scriptures...many of it's memberships have spent countless money and fast sums of time studying them carefully...in many cases they rely on these works....so to say they are not as significant as the bible would jilt their belief system somewhat, not to mention the frier's and saints they have leaned on so heavily...so it is better to maintain their stance than to discover they are in error...it can be an ego bender to admit one is wrong. But sooner or later the truth will indeed be seen and heard as Christ himself will come with a shout and the sound of the trumpet....I doubt if we'll care then. :)
My friend, you have an amazing talent for using a plethora of words without answering a question.
Because Paul received his authority and message by REVELATIONS FROM JESUS CHRIST, face to face and mouth to mouth. Just like Moses received his authority and message from God, face to face and mouth to mouth.
"..I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I shall appear unto thee." (Acts 26:16).
"And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance, And SAW HIM SAYING UNTO ME..."(Acts22:17,18)
"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory, I will come to VISIONS and REVELATIONS OF THE LORD."(2 Cor. 12:1).
"And lest I should be exalted above measure through THE ABUNDANCE OF THE REVELATIONS,.."(2 Cor. 12:7).
"For I have received OF THE LORD that which also I delivered unto you..."(1 Cor. 11:23).
"But I certify you, Brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is NOT AFTER MAN. "For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT BUT BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST."(Gal. 1:11,12).
Let's turn to Scripture for the answer to that question! Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell. Regarding the issue of whether Christians have an "absolute" assurance of salvation, regardless of their actions, consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).
One can be confident of one’s present salvation. This is one of the chief reasons why God gave us the sacraments—to provide visible assurances that he is invisibly providing us with his grace. And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin. Indeed, the tests that John sets forth in his first epistle to help us know whether we are abiding in grace are, in essence, tests of whether we are dwelling in grave sin. For example, "By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:10), "If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20), "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).
Likewise, by looking at the course of one’s life in grace and the resolution of one’s heart to keep following God, one can also have an assurance of future salvation. It is this Paul speaks of when he writes to the Philippians and says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). This is not a promise for all Christians, or even necessarily all in the church at Philippi, but it is a confidence that the Philippian Christians in general would make it. The basis of this is their spiritual performance to date, and Paul feels a need to explain to them that there is a basis for his confidence in them. Thus he says, immediately, "It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (1:7). The fact that the Philippians performed spiritually by assisting Paul in his imprisonment and ministry showed that their hearts were with God and that it could be expected that they, at least in general, would persevere and remain with God.
We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.
If all the answers were contained in the Scriptures, why did not Paul do like a good sola apologist and give them a list of Bible verses?
One sacrifice for sins, offered once and it is forever.
That's what Scripture says. In the Dispensation of the Grace of God. Which is where we are today.
|
) Your position is effectively that of sola eccelsia, and which interprets 1Tim. 3:15 to support it, and your argument depends a certain rendering of sola Scriptura that allows nothing but the Bible to be used in interpretation. In responding i would like to first say that if is to be attacked, it should have a reasonable definition. In so doing it is to be understood that what it is not is a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rev. 10:4) or that science, history cannot provide such. Nor that a historical Scriptural practice cannot be invoked in support of its continuance. (1Cor. 11:1-16) It is not a denial of the teaching office of the church, (Acts 15). Nor must it deny that God can “speak” to believers (especially during the offering:), or illuminate their mind in the meaning of the Scriptures, (2Tim. 2:7) while not affirming that every single part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded. On the positive side, what SS most fundamentally holds to is that all teaching and purported revelation must be subject to demonstrable warrant from and consistency with the Scriptures, these being the only objective authority that is affirmed therein to be 100% inspired by God. (2Tim. 3:16) And that it is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and is formally sufficient to provide the truth needed for souls to be saved (so that one could read Acts 10:43-47 and believe and be saved) and to grow in holiness, though the instrumentation of believers was necessary to pen the Scriptures, and the Biblical church, as it administers the Scriptural truths, is necessary for the perfection of the saints, even as the Scriptures establish that the “body is not one member, but many. (1Cor. 12) However, as the LORD Jesus showed in reproving those who gave unScriptural traditions the authority of Scripture, (Mk. 7:6-13) and by His Spirit commending noble truth-loving souls who examined the very apostles teaching by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) the stewards of the Scriptures are to be subject to it. Both Protestants and Catholicism hold to the material sufficiency of Scripture (Rome rejecting any format sufficiency), but Protestantism holds that this provides for the church and its teaching office, and which is bound to provide sound Scriptural warrant for all doctrine, and to appeal by such to the hearts of truth-loving souls, and substantiate doctrine by the Scriptures as Jesus and the apostles did. (Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24: 27,45; Jn. 5:29; Acts 17:2; 18:28; 2Cor. 4:2; Heb. 1, etc.) As a result, those those who in practice hold to the supremacy of Scripture agree with Rome in the historical foundational essentials, such as articulated in the Nicene Creed, while it is those who look to an ecclesiastical magisterium as supreme, as the LDS, WTS, et., and Rome does, that teach the most heretical doctrines and practices. While Rome claims consistency with Scripture, her apologists deny that one can possess doctrinal certainly by them, but which her infallible magisterium assures. It is therefore even claimed that Roman Catholics need not search the Scriptures to prove the veracity of Romes' “infallibly defined truths.” “The attitude of the Catholic, therefore, is logical and necessary. Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII. The consistent believer. p. 35, 1904; Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ) What Rome has done is to effectively exalt herself above the Scripture by her own self-proclaimed power. That is, she infallibly declares that she is conditionally infallible, according to her infallibly defined formula, and which makes her declaration of infallibility infallible, and by such she infallible defines that her interpretation of Mt. 16:13-19, which she invokes in support of her infallibility, is itself infallible. Thus according to her incontestable interpretation, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict, if she does say so herself. Thus the Roman Catholic position is effectively one of “sola ecclesia”, and historically Rome has damned all those who separated from her. Therefore, despite certain Roman Catholic apologists appeal to Scripture, as if argumentation from it was the basis for their faith, and they might be persuaded by it, they have a apiori faith in the Roman Catholic magisterium, and require the same of others if they would know salvific truth for certain. As for “church tradition”, this refers to an uncodified virtual bottomless less pit, which no one can tell beginning or end from, much less what is all consists of, though it is made equal to Scripture when Rome pronounces it so, while the term “tradition” also can be seen to have evolved in its meaning as time went on. Furthermore, while Rome states that it is not permitted to any one to interpret the Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," Rome's doctrines are not all the result of unanimous consent of the fathers, as she can choose which of the many conflicting traditions they wish to pronounce infallible, and call it unanimous consent. Because Rome clams to be infallible, she can not only autocratically define what the Bible says, but history as well. Thus Manning stated, “the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church?…I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.” (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228). Part of Manning's reasoning, and that of Roman Catholic apologists, is that the channel of truth must be preserved, and that “historical evidence and Biblical criticism are human after all”, thus necessitating an infallible authority. However, the Jewish nation had no assuredly infallible magisterium, but God preserved the faith, albeit within a remnant (as usual) and this was ultimately (as regards the human instrumentality) accomplished through real prophets (who do not depend on lineage for their office) who reproved leaders and called God's people back to Biblical faith. And i think Luther, despite his faults, served in that unction and function. The following is my response from another post to 14 objections and their texts, which the poster _i forget who) provided, paradoxically appealing to Scriptures in order to negate its supremacy, are to be examined. 1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura? While you seem to hold to a very restrictive definition of the breadth of the term, yet by claiming that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God”, Paul places scripture as the supreme objective authority. While Scripture itself reveals that the “Word of God” can include things not written down (though it shows that when that term is used that its revelation was almost always subsequently written), once revelation is established as being from God, it becomes the standard by which further revelation is to be tested, which we can seen in the Scriptures**, and subjective revelation is tested by the objective. While Scripture was “tradition”, yet as the canon is established as only containing inspired writings, separating “wheat” from “chaff”, and is closed, to hold oral tradition as being equal with Scripture is to effectively add to the canon. 2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. Helpful. It is amazing that an authority which is able to save damned souls, and is given “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” is held to be deficient, and its authority subject to a self-proclaimed authority. Rome itself holds that Scripture is materially sufficient, but rejects that it is subject to it, but teaches such unwarranted and unScriptural practices as praying to departed saints (dealt with later). However, if we begin in v. 14 we see that, having exhorting Timothy to continue in what Paul taught him, he invokes Scripture, as Paul's writings were Scripture, (2Pet. 3:16) the canon being yet open, and consistent with it. Moreover, preachers today may enjoin obedience to their preaching, conditional upon it being demonstrably Scriptural. And those who hold to SS are those most fervent defenders of the orthodox truths we both agree on, while again, Rome finds itself on the wrong side of the fence by promulgating doctrines that like cults, are the result of holding a church office as a higher authority than Scripture. In contrast to the evidence to the supremacy of Scripture, nowhere does the Bible state that whatever the church may declare is infallible, , according to its structural and contextual formula, is therefore infallible. Nor does it otherwise establish sola ecclesia, which is effectively the Roman Catholic position, much less as manifested by her. Rather, the doctrinal teaching of the New Testament church is established by Scriptural substantiation and supernatural power, not self-proclamation. (Acts 15) As regards power, like as with Moses, the authority of the instruments of new doctrinal revelation in the New Testament were incontestably attested to by manifest supernatural power, as well as Scriptural probity and their own holiness. (Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10). While often scorned, the fact that the Bereans who examined the apostles teaching by the Scripture were commended by God (Acts 17:11) is one example among others which shows they were not above Scripture, and their infallibility did not truly rest upon self-pronouncement. 3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible? Right after the word “Bible” or “Trinity” or other Biblically derived terms, while Rome has multitudes of terms such as “transubstantiation” or “indulgences” which she claims validity for. 4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of tradition condemned. No, it was not simply corrupt tradition that Jesus condemned, but that which makes tradition corrupt, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” — presuming authority to teach that which Scripture does not warrant, and is contrary to it, this being what the Jewish magisterium did. (Mk. 7:6-9) And which was not infallible, though obedience to their authority was conditionally upheld. (Mt. 23:2) 5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" See second paragraph under 2. Enjoining obedience to Scriptural teaching, which the manifestly God-ordained apostles are established as teaching, with an open canon, does not disestablish the supremacy of Scripture and establish a teaching office that is not demonstrably subject to prior Scriptural revelation, but promotes implicit trust in itself as if it were Scripture. 6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15 note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God. The church would not exist except by faith in the truth, but using a verse which is evidenced elsewhere to mean the church is grounded in and supports the truth, Catholicism extrapolates a doctrine which effectively renders her to be a higher authority than Scripture, autocratically infallibly defining both the extent of revelation and its meaning, by which they confer infallibly to teaching which is not Scriptural, based upon her unwarranted proclamation that she is (conditionally) infallible. 7. Nowhere does Scripture reduce God's word down to Scripture ALONE. Instead the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is found in The Church: in Tradition (2 Th 2:15, 3:6) and in the Church teaching (1 Pet 1:25, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Mt 18:17). This supports the Church principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone' By understanding that there is information that is outside the Bible, SS does not hold that all that the word of God may refer to is explicitly written therein, but holds that all such revelation is subject to it. And by appealing to Scripture to prove that the word of God encompasses more than what is precisely written, the poster has assigned the higher authority to Scripture. 8. The New Testament was compiled at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgments to Rome for the Pope's approval. See #10. Which books reprove Rome, and do not establish her as the one true church. The LDS likewise appeals to their living prophet, and the historical argument claimed by Rome is specious. While the logic behind the poster's statement is that the compilers and stewards of Scripture make them the unique authoritative infallible interpreters of it, but this logic we should all be in Judaism, as unlike Rome, they were explicitly stated to be its stewards. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) 9. Yet, the people HAD the Canon, the Word of God before the scriptures were compiled, and even before some were written What you mean is before the canon of Scripture was compiled, but unless we are not dealing with space or time, one cannot materially have that which did not exist. The Old Testament canon did, without Rome's help, as is internally attested to in the New Testament. 10. Books that were revered in the 1st and 2nd centuries were left out of canon. Books like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. Why? A question reiterated much. Because they failed to sufficiently manifest plenary Divine inspiration. And if they had this quality, no ecclesiastical decrees could render them obscure (a point reiterated much). Here it is important to realize that (despite da Vince Code nonsense) the Scriptures themselves were not the work of a formal church committee, charged with formulating doctrine, but were written by men, sovereignly chosen by God, and were realized as being the word of God due to their unique accompanying as well as enduring power, purity, predictive probity and complementary, but not contradictory, nature. One should consider how the Old Testament writings came to be regarded as Scripture, and that it was so by the time of Jesus is evidenced by their referencing it as Scripture. God spoke to Abraham, and proved it was from Him, likewise with Moses. And once such was established, became the authority which further revelation would be consistent with**, often with supernatural attestation (but never the latter allowing anything that contradicted the former to be confirmed, nor by itself, which can be deceptive: Ex. 7:11; 8:7,18; 2Thes. 2:9-11), with principles of exegesis also being manifested. And while some of Scripture was once oral tradition, it is abundantly evidenced that "the word of God/the Lord" was written down. While church decrees can be helpful, these cannot make a book inspired by God, nor deprive one from being so if it is indeed wholly inspired. Rather than owing its inspiration or the regard of it as such to conciliar decrees, it is their inherent qualities that have resulted in the “menu” of the manna from Heaven being on the “best seller” list of of souls whose hearts and lives most conform to it, and defeating its competition. There are two ways basic to ensure the enduring perpetuation of a book being read. One is by mandate by earthly authority, and the other is by relying on freedom to choose to hear and read it. The 66 books of the Bible are a result of the latter, while the 7 extra book are much due to the former, though Roman Catholics (and institutionalized Protestants) tend to be Scripturally illiterate as whole, and are discouraged from acting as the noble Bereans, and or are not motivated from within. As quoted before, “Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense?” While there is no conflict between Catholics and Protestants in regards to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, Rome itself was substantially divided* on the canonicity of the 7 books she includes, from before Jerome (who rejected them) up until the time Trent defined the Roman Catholic canon, which was the first “infallible” definition, over 1400 years after the last book was given. And in so doing, it arguably chose to follow a weaker tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired. *The earliest and best authorities, including the translator of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, St. Jerome, opposed the Apocrypha. No council of the entire church during the first four centuries cast their vote in favor of them (until Hippo, 393, and Carthage, 397, under Augustine's influence) and they were strongly opposed by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome, and the Syrian church did not accept them until the 4th century. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries. John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado, Cardinal Cajetan and others doubted or rejected the canonicity of the apocryphal books. **Ex. 17:14: 24:7; 34:1; 34:27; Dt. 10:2; 17:18,19; 27:8; 29:21; 30:10; 31:11,19,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,34,35; 23:6; 24:26; 1Ki. 2:3; 12:22; 2Ki. 14:6; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9;2Ch. 34:14,15,21; 35:12; Ezr 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 30:2; 36:2,28; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2; Mat. 2:5; 4:4,6,7,10; 11:10; 21:13,42; 22:29; 26:24,31,54,56; Mk. 1:2; 9:12,13; 14:21,47; 12:24; 14:49; Lk. 2:3; 3:4; 10:26; 19:46; 20:17; 22:37; 24:27,32,45,46; Jn. 5:39; 6:45; 12:14l 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 15:15; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 4:13; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:7; 1Pet. 1:16; 2Pet. 3:16 Mk. 7:3; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 10:35; 11. There were disputes over 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, yet they are in Scripture. Whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority? Actually the issue is not that the church does not teach with infallible authority, as it does if “church” is Biblically defined, and its teaching is demonstrably Scriptural (which establishes certain of Rome's teaching to be true), but the real issue is that of the basis for Rome's claim to be infallible, which is circular. As for the rest of the question, it was not because of a decision by Rome that rendered this choice trustworthy and final, though at that stage the church had more integrity, but it would be the enduring manifestation of the power of such books, consistent with what has previously been established as Scripture, that established them. 12. How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)? 13. Or do Protestants have a fallible collection of infallible documents? And how do they know that Jude is infallible? And how do they know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not? See #10 and11. Just as doctrines such as are expressed in the Nicene creed are held by those who hold to SS, while cults typically practice submission to man as above the Scriptures, so the 66 books of the Bible are upheld, while the now obscure extra ones which Rome finally officially affirmed are rejected. All of the solemn decrees of man cannot declare mud to be food, but that which gives life is known by its effects among those to eat it. And despite Rome's attempts to suppress the Bible in the vernacular at times (she did), the written Word of God cannot long be bound. The question for Roman Catholic is, on what basis can one know for sure that Rome is infallible? And is there an infallible list of all infallible doctrines? 14. Eph. 4:11–15. This is not at all contrary to SS, but instead the teaching office is affirmed by use of SS, as well as the subjection of all that is claimed to be from God to that objective authority which alone is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God. the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Rome itself holds such a distinction, and thus allows for varying degrees of dissent. See last response here. And as very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, and no infallible complete list exists of all that is such, “the Catholic Bible interpreter has...a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty.” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic apologist) Holy Tradition is subordinate to Scripture and in no way contradicts it. One need go no further than the tradition of praying to departed saints. 1. There are zero examples in Scripture, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where any believer prayed to (petitioned to pray) anyone else in heaven but the Lord. 2. There exists no place where exhortations, commands or instruction on prayer directed believers to pray to the departed. “i.e. “Our mother, who art in heaven...”).. 3. In no place is it shown that believers do not have direct access to Christ, or where any insufficiency exists in Christ that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man. (He. 2:17,18; 4:14-16; 7:25) 4. In no place are departed souls in heaven evidenced as interceding for the supplicants upon requests to them. 5. Supplications to beings in heaven besides God are instead condemned. (Jer 44:19) 6. Communication that took place between earthlings and heavenly beings besides God were in the context of personal visitation, on earth or as in a vision. 7. Believers are not crowned in heaven yet, (2Tim. 4:8; 1Pt. 5:4) and Mary as the Heavenly demi-goddess and object of faith and prayer is more akin to paganism's “queen of heaven” (Jer. 44:17-25) than anything we see attributed to mortal beings or even angels in Scripture. In which the ONLY heavenly object of prayer is the LORD, and we are directed to the LORD Jesus who is singularly exalted as our al sufficient and ceaseless and compassionate and worthy intercessor. (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16; 7:25) Revelation 8:3 show[s] those in heaven sending the prayers to God. If God had received them directly there would be no need for the Angels to send them up to God. This does not show the need for praying to such, nor does is establish that God does not directly receive individual prayers, any more than the Old Testament saints had to wait for the priest to offer up incense, (Lev 16:12,13; Lk. 1:9,10) this being emblematic of them, ( Psa. 141:2; Rev. 5:8) The angelic function here is understood as collectively offering the prayers with incense, representing the pleas of the saints, preparatory for judgment upon the earth which hated them. The idea that souls need a heavenly intermediary between themselves and Christ being unsupported and contrary to the immediacy and sufficiency of Christ, therefore the argument for praying to saints in heaven is derived from analogy, that just as believers ask each other to pray for them on earth, so this must spiritually take place between saints in the heavenly and earthly realm. However, besides the utter lack of evidence as referred to in #4, and which is in contrast to God being abundantly affirmed as being so, this analogy would also sanction anything that human interdependence on earth requires, which assumes much. Another attempt is Mat 27:47, when some Judaizers say that Jesus was calling for for Elias, which would be most typically to discredit him, or a reflecting of superstition. Incredibly, in another attempt, 1Tim. 2:1 is actually interpreted to be a request for the departed to to pray! Meanwhile, Irenaeus wrote: “Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Against Heresies, 2:32:5, 4:18:60 The idea of departed souls hearing and answering prayer, or any believer praying to them is not in Scripture, nor the need to, and the Bible evidences this as a practice among the pagans, which implicitly charges the Holy Spirit with neglect for not exampling or instructing that for believers. Thus the argument for it looks to tradition, though this nor the Assumption of Mary enjoyed the often invoked unanimous consent of the fathers, but its real basis is Rome’s declaration of its supreme authority to teach such, and which rests on her own declaration of infallibility, not upon the premise that her authority is dependent on demonstrable Scriptural warrant and concurring testimony. That is, according to our infallible interpenetration (of Scripture, history and tradition) we declare that we are infallible (within a certain infallibly stated formula) and so such an interpretation can be the only right one in any conflict. John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. This would require the Eucharist to be born again, and requires Jesus to literally eat the fathers flesh, which example He sets forth a analogous to this command. (Jn. 6:57; cf. Mt. 4:4; Jn 4:34) Your interpretation depends upon rejection of the use of allegories. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html Raygunfan: scripture alone led to divisions galore even in luther’s time, he even noticed it...and it continues to this day. Catholics can actually disagree to a certain point with certain classes of Rome's teachings, while her unity is most universally that they belong to the Roman Catholic Institution, while doctrinally it is largely one of paper, as priests and laity often substantially dissent from even official teaching. And have divisions themselves, But as evangelicals (being a class that in practice hold to the supremacy of Scripture) most universally require belief in certain basic truths, with denial being heresy, while allowing a limited amount of disagreement in limited areas, so the dogmas of Rome's infallible Sacred Magisterium (infallible teaching of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium by the Pope, Solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, or the ordinary universal Magisterium) require an assent of faith (or “theological assent”), with the opposite being heresy, while the “ordinary assent” (or religious submission of will and intellect) which is required for non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium may allow for a limited amount of dissent, as such teachings may contain error and are subject to revision or even revocation, while those of the General Magisterium may include the possibility of significant error. Source.. |
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.