Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII
By Dave Armstrong
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.
Easy.
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
John 21:25
Scripture is reliable and accurate and true. But it does not encompass all of Christ.
I see you do not believe in the Pope Pius IX words in the UBI Primam of 1849 (which I quoted) and dogma in 1854. Is this not actionable in the Catholic Church?
Never read that before, but its not surprising. I am sure his defenders will claim, thats not what he really meant or that the comments were not his official teaching and was only commenting as a private theologian.
I thought the Popes words "Ex Cathedra" were infallible. Thus when your Pope Pius IX says "ALL SALVATION" is from "Mary", this is DOGMA for you.>p? I'm waiting for you to convince me that the 'Sacred' Tradition, laid down by Pope Pius IX - "ALL SALVATION" is "obtained" through Mary - is correct.
I certainly am NOT a catholic any longer and would never defend Pius, especially for the Sham, rigged Vatican I council where he rammed thru papal infallibility.
I am not sure what he meant, but his defenders will I suppose let us know.
Offcourse, Its all about how Mary was born without original sin and there after sinless. What does Jesus have to do to get a good word every so often? :) Why is the rosary 10 prayers to Mary and only 2 to God?
I said:
“Built his Church.”
Past tense, referring to Christ.
Nope. Sorry, that’s not what the Church teaches. One cannot be saved unless God chooses to save you. Salvation is a free gift from Him, we can choose to accept or reject his offer.
Again, are you saying the RCC teaches salvation is by Grace alone, thru Faith alone, in Christ alone?
“Isaiah 22:19-24 - Shebna and Eliakim were real historical people, addressed in this oracle by Isaiah. It has nothing to do with Peter, apostolic succession or the Church. It does violence to the clear meaning of this passage to imply otherwise. Believe what you wish, I could not be intellectually honest and insert what isn’t there.”
I never said this passage in Isaiah refers to Apostolic Succession, to the Church or to Peter.
What I did say is that Matthew refers to Isaiah.
What it does say is that the Key of David is hereditary to pass on to his sons and so on.
This is the key point. I’m not inserting anything into the passage as written. The parallelism to me is striking, between the binding and loosing and between the opening and closing.
To me that suggests that the two keys are similar.
I’m saying exactly what it says on the tin. That salvation is by the Grace of God through Faith in Christ.
Why doesn’t the mass pray the rosary?
>>You are NEVER a former Catholic. Once a Catholic, your soul is marked forever. You are ALWAYS a Catholic and will remain ALWAYS a Catholic — answerable to the Lord as to why you stopped practicing your faith at the moment of your death.<<
So you would say that Salvation is through the Catholic Church, not through faith and trust in Jesus alone?
A reference would be exceptionally handy.
Not all that is claimed the Papacy has said, has actually been said by the Papacy.
Do you take up arguments based on what you’ve heard, or been told, without researching primary sources?
To say that Jerome didn’t state clearly that the Apocrapha wasn’t part of the canon, is to either (1) be ignorant of a fact, or (2) to lie.
Luther isn’t final authority. While his hermaneutic towards the NT was largely correct (particularly salvation by grace), he and other reformers still allegorized the OT, carrying on a RCC tradition since Augustine.
His error led to spiritualizing the OT, which allowed the continual theology of the day of not separating Israel from the church (because the church wasn’t present in the OT). This has major impacts on eschatology.
In other words, he wasn’t correct in all things: but he got the main things right. And those things he got right came from a plain, normal, litteral interpretation (hermaneutic) of the Bible.
That is where Sola Scriptura comes from.
No, think of it this way.
If you are baptised, can you ever become unbaptised?
The Catholic Church has fallen far from it’s original foundings. See post 127
“To say that Jerome didn’t state clearly that the Apocrapha wasn’t part of the canon, is to either (1) be ignorant of a fact, or (2) to lie.”
I never said that he didn’t say this. I simply argued that we have evidence these books were used as seen in the Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Vaticanus includes all of these books, save Maccabees.
“That is where Sola Scriptura comes from.”
Which is why you are arguing with me about Jerome. Jerome has zero argument wrt NT canon. He also provides zero evidence that the Church did not have the authority to determine which books ought to be included in the NT Canon.
Fr’instance, Sinaiticus includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd. Books that didn’t make the cut.
Luckily I didn’t need to because I am very familar with the word and the concept. Which is why I asked you what you meant.
Don’t worry about it; I’m sure if you had an answer you would have been able to express it by now.
Sheeesh. You Catholics are techy when asked questions. (I know, I know, I’m just assuming you’re Catholic, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.)
>> If you are baptised, can you ever become unbaptised?<<
So you believe “once saved always save” like the Baptists!
Heh. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
One, Baptists will rebaptise you, so clearly you CAN become unbaptised.
Two, Baptists don’t believe that baptism confers salvation.
Why doesn’t the mass pray the rosary?
Because the mass is re-presenting the exact same sacrifice that was done on the cross at calgary. Immolating Jesus in an unbloody manner on the alter. It's not the main time for petitioning Mary and saints.
J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.
Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition, ('See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col. 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition....They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18) and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)
How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture.
Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this:
For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) is a Gnostic line of thought.[ Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 133.]
In fact, the apostle Paul himself states that the gospel he initially preached orally could be verified by the written Scriptures.[ 'Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:1-4).]The church as a whole, up to the thirteenth century, never viewed tradition to be a source of revelation.
Sorry, what is a “tin”?
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.