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.
I don’t know why you keep trying to tell me why these scriptures shouldn’t apply to Christ’s church.
I didn’t set this standard, God did. Your argument is with Him. BVB
“1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?”
Yes.
“Is this a standard belief for your Protestant group?”
I’m not a Protestant. I protest nothing. I affirm truth.
ampu
I agree. There is no "wiggle room" on this central doctrine of the Christian faith. Jesus Christ is Almighty God incarnate. There is only ONE true God. His name shall be called "Immanuel" which is "God with us".
The Bible tells us that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.Yes, but when Catholics say salvation is by Faith and Works, but what is the object of "Faith"?
“Is Peter a Christian because he didn’t call Jesus God?”
He calls him the Christ. What does Christ repeat back to him? He says, ‘Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for you have been revealed this not by me, but by my father in heaven.
Right there in Matthew.
“Did Jesus sin when He didn’t correct him if he is God?”
Jesus not only declined to correct him, he elevated Peter over the other apostles. Again, all this is in Matthew.
“If you polled Christians, they would probably agree with you because of your Church’s teaching. That doesn’t mean it is true.”
Oh, it couldn’t be that Christ was truly the Son of God. Sir, you aren’t a Christian. That much is clear. You could be Muslim, though. Or Jewish. But not a Christian.
“The Apostles creed states that Jesus is the Son of God. I tend to believe them more than a decision made by men using a majority vote 300+ years later who made the penalty for disagreeing with them excommunication from their Church.”
Ahh, now we get to the gist of the matter. You are right that the creeds, Nicaean, Apostle’s and Athanasian Creeds all affirm that Christ is God.
Now my question to you, do you sincerely believe that you are of a greater authority than the Church at the time? You think they made that up out of whole cloth?
Look, Christ in the Temple says, “I have seen Abraham”, and then the Jews try to stone him. Why? Because they believed that he was claiming to be God.
“Christ never made believing He is God a requirement for being a member of His Church. Why would men?”
Really? Why then does he affirm Peter for his testimony that Jesus is the Christ?
“the anointed one of God,”
But that’s not what he says.
YHWH himself comes from the heavens and says:
“This is my SON, with whom I am well pleased.”
Yes, he is the anointed, but he is the Son of God.
I agree as well. Maybe there should be a new forum for this, we are already way off the original topic.
Those words were fulfilled in the book of Revelation...
The fact that many doctrines accepted as truth by all Christians came to fruition after the writings canonized as the New Testament belies that all there is to know about God is contained in the Bible and only in the Bible. It is untrue and provably so.
Well finally...Someone who has the proof...SHOW US THE PROOF!!!
John 8:24
This is why I told you that you would die in your sins. If you don’t believe that I Am, you will die in your sins.”
Don't blame someone's confusion over a basic tenet of the Christian faith a "flaw" of Sola Scriptura. How else do you think we could definitively know the diety of Jesus Christ if not from the very Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures?
“Don’t blame someone’s confusion over a basic tenet of the Christian faith a “flaw” of Sola Scriptura. How else do you think we could definitively know the diety of Jesus Christ if not from the very Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures?”
Agreed.
There is a flip side to this thread - what happens to a Church as a consequence of not elevating the Word of God to rule all else - including “tradition”. That would be a thread worth discussing.
ampu
I believe He is my Messiah so that scripture does not pertain to me. It might pertain to you if you don't think He is your Messiah.
Thank you for your concern, BVB
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I believe the opposite is true.
As Christians, we should try to lead a life as much like Jesus as we can. If he is God, that would be impossible unless we were a god as well.
I believe He is a pre sin nature man empowered by the Spirit of God as He claims all through His earthly ministry. If that is the case, it would be possible for a believer born again into God's family to allowed that same Spirit to guide their life as did the Christians all thru Acts.
Jesus told us we would do greater things then Him. The Pope is suppose to be an equivalent of Peter. When was the last time someone was healed by touching the hem of one of their robes?
I contend it was soon after the enemy took all the power from the Church by convincing them to make Jesus God. BVB
**1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?**
If you define God in persons, Jesus Christ is the only person of God.
With all the references of Christ speaking of the Father being greater than him, sending, giving, teaching, and showing him, it should be clear what the source of power is. The witness that Jesus Christ testified of the Father being in him, and he in the Father, and the statement he made saying that “I and my Father are one” shows them to be inseparable EXCEPT for that matter of ‘three days and three nights’:
The man Christ Jesus had never been separated from the Father until he said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?.
God would not dwell in a dead body; he even commanded Israel that touching a dead body was regarded as unclean. God is not unclean, and had leave him for that time.
When I pray to Jesus Christ, I am praying to God, BECAUSE: “.. he that acknowledgeth the Son HATH the Father also”. 1John 2:23
I really can’t explain it any other way.
**Is this a standard belief for your Protestant group?**
You can call my ‘group’ Protestant, but I call it original in that we follow what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost. It’s the standard belief of the ‘Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ’, and the ‘United Pentecostal Church International’. We are quite a drive from a church house of either, so we meet in a small independent group.
**thank you and God bless**
And to you as well!
Then you are no different than the Muslims.
Jesus is my Messiah, my Savior, my God. Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh (incarnate). Many Old Testament scriptures are prophecies of the Messiah and from them we know, without doubt, that the only true savior of mankind is Jehovah. So if Scripture says there is only one God and that he is the only Savior, then how is it you can say that Jesus is your Savior and he not be Almighty God incarnate?
Some of the verses where this is said are:
Isaiah 43:10-11
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 45:21-22
Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
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.