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.
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.
Certainly, I am still Catholic in the original sense (universal), just no longer Roman.
What will you say to God when He asks you why you should be allowed heaven?
“Protestant teaching of sola scriptura”
I cannot understand how you can at the same time affirm scripture and decimate scripture. You cannot affirm what you tear away.
This is why I believe that scripture does not teach sola scripture, and why we never see any of the Church fathers use the term. Until Luther.
“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.”
This is true.
“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.”
Not so. Your quote from Iraneus refers to the fact that the Apostles had the teaching authority to preach the word, and that from these words, the bible was written. So clearly, Tradition came first, and did refer explicitly to doctrine, the bible itself could not be written.
“Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture.”
Iraneus readily accepted Scripture as approved by the Apostles, so clearly, Tradition wasn’t subordinate to Scripture. Had books come down to him that were not approved by the Apostles do you think they would have been considered Scripture? No.
This the problem.
‘Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture’
Which is why the Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative. To argue that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture is subordinate is false.
To say that the Catholic church goes so far to say that Tradition ought to be independent of Scripture, is also false.
So let’s stop arguing against straw men. The Church teaches scripture and tradition.
Protestants argue a mutilated scripture to uphold a mutilated tradition.
Oh right. Americans...
Tin = Can.
But if we teach that Mary is God, then clearly the mass should have prayers to her too.
Let’s be fair here. Mary *is* important and probably the most important of the Saints to Catholics. But she’s not Christ. I realise that some find her off putting. Frankly, I liked this part of the Catholic church, and I’m glad they do accord her honour.
>> To argue that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture is subordinate is false.<<
Then find Scriptural proof of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or praying through the dead.
But if we teach that Mary is God, then clearly the mass should have prayers to her too.
Don't know anyone who says that! As far as I know, Mary is only the Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix of All Graces, Mother of the Church, Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix, and hundreds of other things, but don't be silly, she is not God. :)
They made the same claim to the authority of tradition that many Roman Catholics make, and it blinded them to Christ.
I claim to be (small ‘c’) catholic and simultaneously an evangelical Lutheran.
Logos is XP in st. John 1:1. Sola Scriptura is upheld at that verse, referenced back to Genesis 1:1-3
That is soooo good. ‘-D
I wouldn't laugh to hard if I was you...
As one poster correctly stated, God spoke and the world was created...
God said his words would always be here...HE said his words would be preserved forever...
How do you suppose he preserved his words??? Regardless of how error filled your religion is, it couldn't even exist in it's current form without the 'book'...
Just curious...How are you going to justify yourself to God when explaining why you added words to scripture to make it mean what you want it to???
The verse doesn't say 'but' one wife...
Can you explain why that is true???
You have some scripture, or an authoritative source for that piece of information???
The Apostles AND the Disciples had the authority to preach the Gospel...Even this Disciple...
Revelation account of the final judgment and the separation of the sheep from the goats.
We have to answer for our sins.
Have you read anything pertaining to Near Death Experiences? I’m readings a fascinating book right now by Dr. Jeffrey Long.....in it the people who have been through the near death experiences relate either a panoramic view of their past life or several incidents. Really worth the read if you believe anything about science or anything about life and death.
“I never said this passage in Isaiah refers to Apostolic Succession, to the Church or to Peter.”
Good! Whew!
“And there you have it. The Key to the House of David is heritary. It is intended to be passed down from father to son, and so on.”
Shebna and afterward, Eliakim, served an administrative function for the House of David. In this instance, the key was a symbol of their authority to act.
In verse 25, Eliakim FAILS, despite being an administrator who represented the House of David, and will be cut off.
Only the throne of David goes to a descendant forever - finding it’s rightful owner, Christ.
This Isaiah passage has nothing to do Matthew’s words.
They are similar in that they mention a key. They are
dissimilar in many ways.
I don’t know why you added this, if you did not think it
had some support for your claim of continuing Apostolic
authority on earth.
In any case, I certainly wish you the very best,
ampu
“This Isaiah passage has nothing to do Matthew’s words.”
You don’t think that the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven and the Key of David are in the least similar to one another? That they represent two hereditary offices where the authority can be passed on?
That is the only point I’m trying to show here. That the keys of the kingdom of heaven were intended to be a heriditary office.
“I don’t know why you added this, if you did not think it
had some support for your claim of continuing Apostolic
authority on earth.”
You misunderstand. You said that Isaiah referenced Matthew. No. Matthew references Isaiah. This is the reference that Christ was making when he gave the Key to Peter. Why give him a key at all?
Then why doesn’t Iraneus speak of the Gospel as received from the disciples. He specifically says, the Gospel as received from the Apostles, that they had teaching authority in the Church because they were Apostles.
“How can a man be born again”.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.