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.
Sure does. Maybe not the in the letter of Paul to Iscool, but Timothy does.
I love it how sola scriptura isn’t sola scriptura after all...
Possibly to all and many believers have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Many a believer in fellowship with Him have the ability to loose and to bind.
If there is any doubt of this, consider why so many Masonic and witchcraft cults seek to loose fallen angels by their ceremonies in the dark with blood letting using believers who are unaware their manipulations.
The Christian way of life is a spiritual life in all things through faith in Him. Thank You Lord.
You’re right.
You would have us believe that it took 1500 years to publish said book. And then have the temerity to call this ‘sola scriptura’. Heh.
So why doesn’t my Vulgate count as ‘sola scriptura?’
Praying for the departed in heaven?
“For I am not a God of the dead, but of the living”.
They aren’t dead and we can ask them to pray for us just as we can anyone else. It’s no different.
As for:
“perpetual virginity of Mary”.
Show me evidence that Christ had blood brothers and I will be happy to concede the point. Scripture is silent on many things.
Scripture doesn’t go on at length about what Christ was like as a baby, or his childhood. Does this mean that he was never a child? Nor does it refer to Mary’s purported other pregnancies.
However it does say that Mary will be considered blessed, and it does say that those who choose not to have children will also be considered blessed.
“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?”
First, the closest the NT has to the administrative key
is in Revelations 3:7, where Christ says He holds the
key of David. Strange He has it and Peter doesn’t, if
it were the same key...
You seem to be saying Jesus was referring to Isaiah
when He is quoted in Matthew. The passage does not say
this, so it remains an interesting assumption on your
part that can never become more than that.
I do believe Peter was given authority in the Kingdom,
but over the Church, since the Kingdom is specifically
stated.
I also believe you are assuming what Christ said to Peter involves hereditary transmission, but again, it isn’t in the text, so it remains an assumption on your part.
Since supposed holders of that authority in this age are
prohibited from marrying and reproducing, it seems to me
that your hereditary argument is pretty thin gruel...
Having responded to your arguments a couple times...
I point out again that IF the Church was intended to continue to pass along Apostolic authority, it would
have been revealed and commanded in the NT, just like
all the instructions for choosing elders and deacons
are delineated.
Neither is present in the New Testament.
You can choose between two actual Biblical examples of
choosing Apostles, if you believe we are to do so today:
1. Casting lots, as in Acts
2. Christ Himself appearing to a non-Christian and opening his eyes, then making him an Apostle, they “seasoning” him
for 15 or more years... as when He chose the Apostle Paul
Which do you pick?
best,
ampu
CB,
Don’t know if you read this when it was posted on
FR, but it examines every verse in the Bible about
Mary. Very well done.
http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2009/06/true-mary-of-nazareth-as-taught-in-holy.html
ampu
The early Church did not teach what the Church teaches today concerning Mary. In fact they denounced it as heretical.
It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church, as evidenced by its rejection by Augustine and Gregory the Great, and in later centuries by Anselm, Bernard of Clairveaux, and Thomas Aquinas. The Roman Catholic patristic scholar, Walter Burghardt, confirms the patristic and papal rejection of this doctrine historically:
Post-Augustinian patristic thought on the perfection of Mary reveals two conflicting currents. There is a negative, unfavorable trend rooted in Augustine's anti-Pelagianism; it accentuates the universality of original sin and articulates the connection between inherited sin and any conception consequent upon sinful concupiscence. The root idea is summed up by Leo the Great: 'Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence.' The same concept is discoverable in St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe in Africa (d. 533), the most significant theologian of his time; in Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) at the end of the sixth century; and a century later in Venerable Bede, a scholar renowned throughout England.
In later centuries the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a matter of violent dispute within the church between Franciscans and Dominicans for centuries. It also contradicts the scriptural teaching of the universality of original, as well as actual, sin.
Roman Catholicism teaches the faithful that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. It states that this too is a dogma of the faith, a truth divinely revealed by God and necessary to be believed for salvation. It goes so far as to assert that any who would dispute this doctrine have completely fallen from the faith and are condemned. For the first six centuries nothing is said on this matter.
The first Father to promote the teaching of her assumption was Gregory of Tours in A.D. 590, and he based his teaching on an apocryphal gospel found in the Transitus literature. The assumption doctrine actually originated with this literature sometime in the fourth or fifth centuries and this specific teaching — the Transitus assumption of Mary was officially rejected as heretical. It was placed in the same category with such heretics as Arius, Pelagius, and Marcion and was condemned by two popes in the late fifth and early sixth centuries — Gelasius and Hormisdas. These popes place this doctrine, its authors and the contents of their writings, as well as all who follow their teachings, under an eternal anathema. Thus, the early church viewed this doctrine not as the pious expression of the faith of the faithful but as a heretical doctrine that probably originated from gnostic sources. Discoveries such as these only underlined my growing awareness that Rome did not accurately represent the historic doctrine of the early church, much less what I saw in the New Testament.
Rome teaches that Mary is a mediatrix and even a co-redemptrix with Christ and that grace cannot be applied to man except through her. This teaching is also false. It not only contradicts the scriptural teaching of the unique and exclusive mediatorial role of Christ but there is not one word found in Scripture of Mary functioning in the role of mediatrix or co-redemptrix. Nor is there one word of this kind of teaching in the writings of the Fathers.
The early Church would have condemned todays Church as heretics.
Thanks, I’ll look it up.
Even the early Church would have called todays Catholic Church heretical. See post 187.
There is more truth in your pic than in all of the comments of the two main ‘warring’ factions on this thread.
Man was made in the image of God. One brain, not three.
The ‘warring’ factions believe that there are three ‘heads’ to this religion.
“Have you read anything pertaining to Near Death Experiences?”
I had a fairly long conversation with an elderly Japanese man who had one. He was not a Christian. Interesting.
This book compares the responses from people of differing ages, races, financial status, religion. It’s absolutely fascinating.
What is amazing is that with the differences especially in cultures and religions, the near death experiences are very similar.
“No Biblical proof ey?”
Regarding her perpetual virginity? It’s not explicitly stated in the bible.
“Making it up as you go? The early Church did not teach what the Church teaches today concerning Mary. In fact they denounced it as heretical.”
According to the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. The Church has pretty much always taught that she was a perpetual Virgin, and the belief is well attested by the early Church Fathers.
“It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church”
Quite false.
“Thomas Aquinas”.
Complete and utter rubbish.
“In his monumental Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons for Mary’s perpetual virginity: First, Jesus is the Only-Begotten of the Father, so it was becoming that he should be the only-begotten of his Mother. Second, Mary’s virginal womb is the shrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he had formed the flesh of Christ; wherefore it was unbecoming that intercourse with man should desecrate it. Third, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother: For she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son.”
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
That’s a Protestant viewpoint and doeos not cover the entire subject at all.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“First, the closest the NT has to the administrative key
is in Revelations 3:7, where Christ says He holds the
key of David. Strange He has it and Peter doesn’t, if
it were the same key.”
T’would be why I said th’keys were similar, not th’ same.
“You seem to be saying Jesus was referring to Isaiah
when He is quoted in Matthew. The passage does not say
this, so it remains an interesting assumption on your
part that can never become more than that.”
Except that the Patristic literature backs me up all the way here. What, do you think I’m clever enough to invent this myself?
“I point out again that IF the Church was intended to continue to pass along Apostolic authority, it would
have been revealed and commanded in the NT.”
Which is what Christ did with Matthew. He explicitly said that his Church would prevail, and that he was building his Church on Peter, the Rock. That’s a pretty strong clue that the office is intended to be passed on from one holder to another.
Does it make sense to interpret the passage as saying that the Key is a one-time gift to Peter that would not be handed down to anyone else, while at the same time claiming that your Church would be perpetual? Hardly.
Does this interpretation appear prior to the 16th century? No. Oddly convenient that Luther would interpret a passage to benefit himself, no?
I’m sorry, he doesn’t.
Thomas Aquinas spends chapters on this topic in the Summa. I’ll be happy to quote chapter and verse.
He’s a fine person, but on this topic, no, he doesn’t have an informed opinion.
You’re body is dead when the blood is dead. Cells saturated with CO2=No useful organs for transplant.
How long does the brain function in undetectable fashion? Until the blood is dead. All nourishment consumed by the cells, the co2 unable to leave; brain shutdown begins.
oxygen reduction=increased hallucination.
For pilots flying at high altitudes, one of the big warning signs of oxygen reduction is euphoria; an increased sense of well being.
The book may be interesting, even emotionally moving, to the natural man, but nothing concrete to build on if it doesn’t harmonize with the Word.
BOOM !!
“For pilots flying at high altitudes, one of the big warning signs of oxygen reduction is euphoria; an increased sense of well being”
Do those pilots always get euphoria, or do they sometimes feel terror?
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.