Scripture and Tradition

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

You forgot the first part of that verse (and its conclusion):

Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these things so that, if I am delayed, you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, was taken up in glory.

Did you get that? Paul was WRITING this letter - you know, the SCRIPTURE book of I Timothy - so that Timothy and those he taught would know how they were to act or behave in an assembly of believers (ekklesia). The "church" is supposed to hold up and support the truth as it was taught to them by Jesus and the Apostles. This truth which was written down and preserved up to even today. It didn't change. Christians STILL believe that Jesus appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, was taken up in glory.

The bible (the book that Rome assembled from various sources long ago) ITSELF makes that claim.

Actually; it is Rome's claimed First Pope that made the claim:

2 Peter 1:3
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

Has. Not 'going to' or 'more traditions will follow' or '...given us ALMOST...'.

Did you get that?

Do you know English? How to diagram a sentence? The CHURCH is described by Paul as the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH. The CHURCH. Paul never describes Scripture as the foundation of TRUTH. That is the relevant part of my argument, which you continue to ignore.

I'll repeat - What does Scripture say is the pillar and Foundation of Truth? (Hint- it is the Church Christ established.) And show your answer using Scripture.

The Grace of God in Christ Jesus is the rock.

The Rock represents a few things in Scripture.

What language did Christ speak to the Apostles? Peter was called Rock by Christ. Calling Peter Rock showed the importance of Peter in starting and building his Church.

Read the plain words of Scripture to find the real meaning.

Wrong again! Peter was called 'pebble' by Jesus.

Try reading the 'plain words of scripture' in the Greek. You might avoid a few of these simple errors.

To Peter, Jesus gave the task of opening The Grace of God in Christ for the Jews First, then the Gentiles. But the Primacy of Peter was not even evidenced at the first great council of the Ekklesia, as shown to us in Acts, where the admonition against blood was repeated. Sad that the Catholic religion has ignored that from the First great declaration from the Ekklesia Council.

Yeah, I DID read the plain words of Scripture.

The word used to name Peter in the verse referred to is DIFFERENT in the original Greek.

Therefore, Peter was NOT the rock; he was simply a pebble and the rock was the confession of Jesus as the Christ.

Plain words of Scripture, in the original language no less.

That and, even if I were to accept that argument at face value, my point last night still stands; Roman Catholicism has abandoned the truth and no longer has a lampstand. They are no longer a church of Christ.

But the Primacy of Peter was not even evidenced at the first great council of the Ekklesia, as shown to us in Acts, where the admonition against blood was repeated.

***

Now, to be fair, the Lord is known to give commands and then specify exceptions to those commands. The most obvious being “Thou shall not kill” and then exceptions for self-defense (Luke 22) and of course the whole removing the Cannanites from the Promised Land.

So I think that a case could be made against consuming blood with the specific exception of the blood of Christ, because Jesus commanded to take and drink it.

(Certainly doesn’t change the fact that the RCC is in blatant and irreconcilable contradiction to huge swaths of Scripture, but I think in this case it’s not quite the same thing.)

1: No, it’s ‘kill’ in Hebrew. I know enough Hebrew; I had it pounded hard enough into my head, let me tell you. The sense may be murder because of the exceptions, but the word itself is ‘kill.’ Specifically, killing another human. There are cases where the word is used that does not contain the connotation of murder. (Numbers 35: 27, where the word is used as the avenger of blood kills the target outside of a sanctuary city, and the avenger of blood is not guilty, even though the same word as in the Commandment is used.)

2: Also, from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”

Of course, Catholics believe differently, but we Lutherans believe that verse in question means that Communion is, yes, the real Body and Blood of Christ. And also bread and wine because that’s ALSO what Jesus says they are. How? No idea, but Scripture is our source of truth, and that’s what it says.

Now, you can argue differently if you like, but I simply wanted to point out that you CAN make an argument solely from Scripture about the whole Communion thing.

Even if I’ve never seen a Catholic on this board use that argument before, to be honest. But then again, I’m just a neophyte on FR religion.

The bread is meat indeed, as the will of the man turns to The Christ for Redemption. The wine is blood in the sense that the will of man accepts the sacrifice on a spiritual level as the means to wash away his sins. Jesus told the 'remained behind' followers that THE WORDS HE SPOLE, THEY ARE FULL OF SPIRIT AND LIFE, the flesh profiteth nothing.

The body and spirit are not in the same spacetime coordinate system. As JESUS told Nic (John 3) what is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of Spirit is spirit. Feeding that which has been born again is done with the showbread of The Word of God, not via the alimentary tract.

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura...

against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants...

Fundamentalists say...

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately,..

So we have yet another provocative attack on evangelical faith and propagandist promotion of Catholicism. Are you going to whine to the mods when its specious use of strawmen and errors are exposed (stay tuned)? Should Catholics have a special status?

In reality, an even playing field, under the judicious oversight of the overall superior RF mods and rules, results in more participants.

The word used to name Peter in the verse referred to is DIFFERENT in the original Greek.

Let me educate you.

Christ and the apostles did not speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic.

We all know the verse - "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter, and built his Church on Peter. But there is more to the story when we look beyond the English we find in the Bible. Many of our Protestant brothers say Peter is not the Rock, and they point to the Greek. In Greek, the verse would be "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church." In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble. They will say that Jesus was the Rock, and the Greek shows the Church was not built on Peter.

But Christ did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. Once we get behind the Greek, we see the real meaning. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ Kepha means rock in Aramaic. What’s more in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha rendered as Kephas in its Greek form.

So if kepha (Rock in Aramaic) means the same as petra Rock in Greek, why doesn’t Matthew say ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’, Instead of Petros, which means something quite different from petra? Because he had no choice. In Greek, you have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. So we know Peter is the Rock. And that’s the rest of the story.

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.

Then list all the verses that mention tradition.