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.
And maybe one of them is right...The fact is, the bible is correct and contains all we need to be Christians...The bible doesn't allow for different intpretations...
The problem is with the Christians who don't like what the bible says, or they don't believe what the bible says...
But the Protestants are very close to each other especially on the doctrinal issues...
The advantage of everyone reading the scriptures and coming up with a personal opinion is that we can see that millions upon millions of individual Christians pretty much all agree as to what God says...That's pretty radical...That proves we are definitely on the right track...God has spoken to each of us in the scriptures and we understand and believe what God is saying...
Your religion on the other hand is so far out there that there is no way the Holy Spirit could be leading anyone...
There are 86,000 Protestant denominations out there and we agree...There is 1 of you and we're so far apart we can't even have a conversation about the bible...And those of you who do chose to study the scriptures, leave your religion...
I'm going to stick with the majority...
Excuse the unintended harshness of this statement but if the Scriptures speak always clearly for themselves than 30,000 denominations attest them as din.
How is man saved?
By baptism shortly after birth?
or as Jesus told us in John 3:16?
What about traditions that have been left behind over the year?
Thank you GonzoII, for that post. Though I fear folks are missing the point. I guess that’s to be expected.
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible.
God's Word is insufficient. He has to be helped out by a group of people who have taken worldly power over an institution He established and His efforts, no matter how independent of man are insufficient for salvation without the help of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
His Word alone is insufficient, unless the RCC adds their 2 cents, then it's OK.
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
Without tradition, God is impotent to provide salvation. He is dependent upon the attitudes and customary habits of man in order for Him to provide salvation.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Since His Word references historical events, they must be embellished with man made RCC tradition.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
As in Acts 15, God the Father required nothing more than faith in Christ of the Gentiles to receive salvation and God the Holy Spirit in them. The tradition of the RCC mandates other burdens including the ordinances of the RCC be followed in order to receive salvation just to help God out so His salvation mechanism might be more perfect.
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
Why stop with a good thing, lets add even more tradition.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
Even though the priests taught from Scripture, their teaching is now used as a substitute for His Word and considered independent of His Word by the RCC, so they also can add whatever they want and it has as much authority in the RCC as His Word.
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
The RCC believes Paul is writing about tradition, not by inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. So too the RCC can appeal the same object of their worship, in tradition, without respecting God the Holy Spirit, and they are still justified in their belief system.
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
The only conclusion the RCC can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. Christ, the Word of God, is only stable if the RCC helps Him out. His communication needs the approval of the Church, and confirmation by its Tradition, before the RCC will allow Him to communicate with man veritably.
In a nutshell, Christ, the Word of God, is insufficient without the RCC, so everybody better start worshiping the RCC, in order to have a chance to get to Christ. Of course, as soon as anything is placed before Christ, our faith isn't in Him, but in that 'other' mediator. /s
I have found a few such things like Jannes and Jambres.
St. Peter comments in I Peter 2:6-8 - how “just Lot” was a righteous man, vexed in Sodom and Gommorah - distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless ... I never would have known that by just reading Genesis, until St. Peter told us that.
No, contained therein along with the expostion of the written Traditions as well.
Amen...
It was the Church who complied the Bible and the same Church existed 400 years before this same Church gave official approbation for the individual works to be deemed to be part of the canon. I don't believe "Any Good Protestants" participated in the compilation process which they now use to invent prideful interpretations.
“Where does the Bible teach there will always be
Apostles living on the earth?”
This is a very good question.
Matthew 16:19, among other things, Christ gives to Peter the ‘Keys to the kingdom of heaven’.
Now, what does he mean here? When someone is given an office they are given the trappings of the office. In this case, part of the trappings of Peter’s office are the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
In most cases, when the current officeholder dies, the keys return to their owner, and are passed onto another officeholder.
You are very right to ask, how do we know that the idea of the keys were meant to be passed on?
If you look at Isaiah 22:19-24
I will depose you from your office,
and you will be ousted from your position.
“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah.
I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father.
All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.”
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.
Now, we look at what Christ says about the Key to the kingdom of Heaven, there’s some parallelism there isn’t there?
“what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”
“whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsover you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
He also says:
“I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
So we can take this as evidence that his office persists even to this day.
For another example, the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy SPirit is God; but Jesus is not the Holy Spirit and Jesus is not the Father. And while Jesus is a Person, Scripture is a Book: but Jesus is not a Book.
Neither Jesus nor Scripture teach "Scripture alone."
It's the "alone" part that gets you into trouble. If what we needed is Scripture "alone," then the Son might just as well have stayed in Heaven, and John might just as well have said,
"For God so loved the world, that He sent a Book."
And people who had no Book --- illiterates, for instance --- could not be saved. Which is nonsense: it is not what any of us believe.
You don’t count Arius?
No it does not...You're making that up...Scripture does NOT say that all that Jesus taught is not in the scripture...
You assume that all of the Protestants disagree on the Authority of Scripture. Most disagreements are on polity or practice.
You're welcome.
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
That's the requirement for an Apostle...Therefore, no apostolic succession...
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.