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

Refutation of Catholic.com's (https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition)“Scripture and Tradition” (by the grace of God, and with nice weather outside beckoning:)

As is often the case with the heretics at Catholic.com, they must engage in presenting strawman arguments in order to make it appear they have a valid argument. Here, “contains all of the material one needs...Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.” is wrong. As seen by the surpassing wealth of evangelical commentaries alone, if anything extraneous to the Bible is simply unnecessary, or wrong then the very Christians Catholic.com attacks. What this superficial sophistry fails to do is to differentiate between sufficiency in the formal sense (as in the a clear presentation of the gospel, as in Acts 10:36-47), and the material sense, in which Scripture provides for reason, the Spirit's guidance, spiritual gifts, the magisterial office, etc. which are essential of helpful in understanding. Meanwhile, Catholics can also agree that anything extraneous to the Bible may well hinder one in coming to God, or that it “may” not, so there is no valid argument on this.

Therefore, no less a historical document on Sola Scriptura the Westminster Confession states,

not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them [necessary things).

there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils. (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith/)

Note that from the beginning, God has always provided man with the light necessary to obey Him, even though He would give more light, and when Christ appears believers shall no longer know in part; but shall know even as they are known (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Thus right from the beginning Catholic.com has failed in its argumentation.

Which is more misrepresentation, this time by equating the church of Rome with the NT church. For the rule of faith for the NT church was that of the wholly inspired-of-God written word and wholly inspired oral words of men such as the Lord and apostles, and who also could provide new public revelation. In contrast, Roman Catholic (RC) popes and prelates do not (and cannot) claim to speak as wholly inspired even in supposedly speaking ex cathedra. Nor does Rome claim to provide new public revelation, while even SS can enjoin obedience to oral preaching under the premise and condition that it is Scriptural, as that of apostles was.

Yet what Rome autocratically claims is that what she proclaims as apostolic tradition is wholly inspired of God as existing in an amorphous oral form, despite such traditions being foreign to Scripture (as among many other things, prayer to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly absent except among pagans despite the Holy spirit providing approx. 200 prayers in Scripture). However, rather than the wholly inspired written word and oral transmission being equal, with the Roman church effectively being supreme (since she imagines such only consists of and means what she says, based upon her the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility), even the veracity of preaching by the apostles was subject to examination by Scripture by noble souls, (Acts 17:11)

And while God did provide revelation orally, yet rather this being God's means of preservation, and being the transcendent supreme standard for faith and obedience, writing is God's chosen means of preservation, and the “word of God/the Lord” was usually written, directly or subsequently, and as is abundantly evidenced as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)

• And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. (Exodus 34:1)

• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)

• And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)

• And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)

"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23) "

• And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)

• And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee. (Deuteronomy 27:3)

• " And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24) "

• This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)

• "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31) "

• Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; (Revelation 1:19)

• "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12) "

• "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15) "

As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And it was not the veracity of Scripture that subject to testing by oral preaching/tradition, but oral preaching was subject to testing by Scripture:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

And it was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:

And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)

Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)

Nor was it passed-down oral tradition that was ever lauded like the written word of God, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119) and was the authority the Lord reproved the devil and religious leadership by, and substantiated His clams by, and opened the minds of the disciples to. (Mt. 4; 22; Lk. 24:44,45)

Therefore, Rome does not speak as and according to what wholly inspired NT men did, and unlike Rome, they did not effectively presume to be supreme over Scripture, under the (conditional) premise that she cannot err, while the very idea that God would not commit to writing that which was essential, and that oral transmission was God's chosen means of preservation is contrary to the only wholly inspired substantive revelation of God. Oral transmission by its very nature is supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption, and and even (as in the case of the Assumption) when even early history fails to provide warrant for a required belief. Thus souls are supposed to trust Rome that she cannot err in proclaiming such, and thus this unScriptural presumption — which Rome invokes Tradition for support — is a fundamental error.

Yet as said, it was the veracity of oral preaching that was subject to examination by Scripture, and not vice versa, but which preaching relied on and affirmed Scripture. For as also shown, it is the written word that became the preserved and supreme standard, while Rome cannot and does not claim to speak as wholly inspired of God, and thus cannot be equal to that which is, Scripture or when apostles spoke thereby.

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"),

Rome can only wish Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants were as Catholic as Luther, and reformers certainly did not consider anything extraneous to the Bible to simply be unnecessary or wrong.

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.

Which is basically another strawman, since the unsubstantiated “usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses” makes John 20:31 into a one of two verses argument for the sufficiency of Scripture, as if this one verse demonstrated that, rather than it part of the abundant testimony to writing being the means by which God preserves and provides essential truth. And which I have most often seen cited in response to Catholics invoking John 20:30 in support of oral tradition. But which would does not say that such is preserved in oral transmission, and rather than even inferring such is essential, in contrast , writing is said to be means chosen to provide evangelical Truth.

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.

To say that only inspired writing need be followed is indeed something else, for then it would eliminate evangelical preaching: one can just read their Bible, but oral, Scriptural preaching is provided for in Scripture, as is the light of nature, etc. without militating against SS, properly, reasonably understood. But to say that the veracity of oral preaching should not be subject to examination by inspired Scripture, and that what Rome teaches is equal to and always consistent with the only wholly inspired substantive standard, is “indeed something else” than Scriptural. In addition, unlike Scripture, nowhere is all oral tradition said to be inspired of God, and used to equip one unto all good works.

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." Newman’s argument

Newman's argument is flawed, since,

1. Though what Timothy knew was only Old Testament (OT) Scripture, the statement “All Scripture is inspired of God” includes all Scripture, whatever was already established as being so as well that which would be.

2. Even in the OT what God provided was sufficient for faith and obedience, and if Jewish oral tradition was needed after the close of the OT canon, and equal with Scripture according to what the historical magisterial stewards of it said, then the church is rendered invalid. However, if being the historical magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation, and siting in the seat of Moses over the people who were the recipients of promises of God's presence and preservation does not require or mean such is infallible, but can be reproved and disobeyed under Scripture being supreme, then so can the church of Rome, which is distinctively not that of the NT church.

3. While God, in His grace, provided more Divine revelation (even OT Scripture was the supreme standard ,and sufficient to provide what is needed, in its formal and material sense, which provides for more wholly inspired revelation being given and discerned), Rome does not speak as wholly inspired of God nor provide new revelation as such men as the apostles did, and she can only validly preach Scriptural truths as binding doctrine, not fables or whatever else she channels out of amorphous, highly corruptible oral tradition.

Yet Paul's preaching was based upon Scripture being supreme, (Acts 17:2,11; 26:22; 28:23) while sometimes speaking as wholly inspired of God and providing new revelation. Thus as said, even the veracity of such a manifestly God-ordained apostle (in contrast to Rome's purported successors) as Paul was subject to testing by Scripture. The burden of Rome is to prove that she speaks or writes as wholly inspired of God, or failing this (which she does), that she cannot err whenever declaring that believers are bound to believe things which the NT is not shown believing, or even are absent from the wholly of Scripture, and even may lack evidence from early history. And that an infallible magisterium is essential for knowing what revelation is from God. All of which she cannot show without her arguments for herself being circular.

And as said, SS preachers can enjoin obedience to oral preaching, under the premise and condition that it is Scriptural, which such apostolic preaching was. Even the whole church went “preaching the word.” (Acts 8:4) But such men as David and the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, neither of even Rome claims to do, but her veracity is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

The first fatal distinction here is that oral teaching was not implicitly accepted by 1^st century souls and Christians based upon the aforementioned premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which the self-proclamation of Roman Catholicism claims, but instead they established their veracity upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. “But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2) “But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,.. (2 Corinthians 6:4-7) “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” (1 Corinthians 4:20) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

The second distinction here is that the oral teaching of Luke 10:16 was not simply apostles, and was a basic message of repentance, while Matt. 28:19 is for all believers who belief the apostolic gospel, which actually excludes Catholicism! The whole church went forth preaching the word, (Acts 8:4) which was manifestly not that of Catholic distinctive, which are not seen in the inspired record (Acts to Revelation) of what the NT church believed. And the gospel they preached was not that of justification by actually becoming good enough in character to be with God through postmortem purifying torments, but "purifying their hearts by faith " (Acts 15:9) with faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) a faith that is expressed in baptism and obeying the Lord Jesus, but who are "accepted in the Beloved" and "made to sit together with Him" in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) having immediate access into the holy of holies in Heaven by the blood of Christ. (Heb. 10:19)

And thus wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:10f)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the only suffering after this life, that of the loss of rewards due to the combustible nature of the material one built the church with, which one is saved despite of, not because of. (1Co. 3:8ff)

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction:

As with SS preachers, but not by preaching that which the NT did not manifestly preach and believe, including,

• Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers, with none being addressed to anyone else but God, who alone is shown able to hear all such from Heaven. Only pagans prayed to invisible heavenly beings than God, as the Spirit is faithful to record.

• Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods. Only pagans burned incense unto the queen of heaven: Jeremiah 44:16-17), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven if they died at the time of the baptism, but which thus means that the same (due to the outworking of their remaining sinful nature) usually have to later endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven.

• Nor were novenas made to obtain indulgences to escape RC purgatory, as instead by effectual faith true believers are already accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)

And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture.

• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme central practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved. For instead it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it, the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) More , by God's grace.

• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin. Neither presbuteros or episkopos are even called “hiereus," the distinctive word translated "priest," which conflation is the result of ecclesiastical evolution, and NT pastors are nowhere even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.

• Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2 Timothy 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)

• That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes.

• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy. Instead both apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5) and NT clergy were normatively married with children, which evidenced his qualifications for the pastorate, (1 Timothy 3;1-7) and with celibacy being a gift that not all have, ((1 Corinthians 7:7) and it is only wrongly presumed that all or almost all clergy do.

• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.

• Choosing more apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (in order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, thus no politics. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)

• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

More to see by God's grace.

"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.

Here Catholic.com even employs a paraphrase, which actually says “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” while again, preaching the word” includes orally preaching Scriptural truths, but aside from wholly inspired preaching. including new public revelation, is what all believers are to do. And that what is essential for faith and obedience has been preserved by writing, versus oral tradition as Rome (sometimes in tradition-conflict with the EOs) declares it, is consistent with what we see in the OT, with the written word becoming the standard, to which the preaching of the church was dependent upon, and subject to. Thus Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,” (Acts 17:2) “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come,” (Acts 26:22) while also preaching as wholly inspired of God including new revelation, established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (2Co. 6:4-10)

Actually, the orally “preached” word requires the written word to have its authority, and is that of preaching Scriptural Truths, includes such preaching as “he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28) In addition to which, as said, could include wholly inspired preaching and new revelation, both of which excludes Roman popes and prelates as doing so. And again, rather than oral transmission being the supreme standard and God's means of preservation, instead it is manifest that it was what was written, and thus it is reasonable that what is essential for faith and obedience would be preserved by writing, and not that uninspired men would declare as binding doctrines which the NT church did not manifestly believe, under the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Yet we know this because it was preserved in writing, thus testifying to what is needed being preserved and provided by writing, and thus rather than quoting oral tradition, even RCs need to invoke Scripture in attempting to make Rome's nebulous oral tradition equal to it. Meanwhile Paul's own preaching relied upon Scripture as being the supreme transcendent standard, and was not that of uninspired men preaching as binding doctrine what is not seen therein, as is the case with Catholicism.

What is Tradition?

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,

Yet which can be the case, as in the Assumption, and is denied to be a legend or mythological accounts based upon the aforementioned novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. Not less an authority than Cardinal Ratzinger stated,

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously..." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine)

Faced with the lack or warrant, Ratzinger resorts to sophistry in arguing Rome came to recognize what it had not "caught sight of,” which in reality was because there was nothing to really see as substance in the earliest period where this very notable event should have been recorded, before the fable developed.

But rather than actual substantive warrant (which Scripture supremely is) being the basis for the veracity of RC beliefs, it is Rome's own self-proclaimed veracity that is. As Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers, asserted, : "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." (Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),

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).

Luke 10:16 refers to 72 disciples preaching a basic Scriptural message of repentance (cf. Mt. 6:12) and faith in the Lord Jesus of Scripture, accompanied by miracles, not uninspired unScriptural Catholic priests preaching as binding doctrines that which is not seen in the NT church. The veracity of which as being apostolic tradition rests upon the very tradition of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, which itself is unseen in Scripture.

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).

John 14:25-26, 16:13 simply promises future revelation, which the rest of the NT attest to, and does not promise that whatever uninspired magisterial men formally profess as binding Truth to all their church will be protected from error. More on this below.

Handing on the faith

“According to the Scriptures” — not oral transmission as foundational — testifies to Scripture being the supreme standard which oral preaching is subject to, and SS believers are to be faithful to Scriptural “traditions” as meaning its Truths are to maintain. The text does not refer to uninspired men teaching as binding doctrines that which is foreign to Scripture or the NT church in particular.

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.

Wrong. If the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church from the very beginning then there would have been no need to provide more revelation after Pentecost. And again, oral, authoritative apostolic tradition was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And was not that of uninspired men teaching as binding doctrines that which is foreign to Scripture or the NT church in particular.

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).

Which we know because it was preserved by writing, which Catholics are dependent upon in their vain attempts to argue their contrasting oral tradition is essentially. Thus that the NT Christians received the word of God orally as well as by writing is not the issue of contention, but that this simply does not translate into this oral tradition — which we know by Scripture — was not written down if essential (while most of the word of God after Acts was directly written as such) being that of uninspired men teaching as binding doctrines that which is foreign to Scripture or the NT church in particular.

"Commandments of men"

They were erroneous human traditions because they were contrary to Scripture, and the basis for Catholic tradition being “truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles” actually rests upon her tradition that she is uniquely the One True Church® whose magisterium cannot salvifically err. However, in Scripture God often preserved and provided Truth by raising up men from outside the magisterium (which is how the church began, and Truth has been preserved), which they rejected, as Rome has.

But such obedience to men is always conditional upon not being in conflict with Scripture, which Catholicism is in her distinctives, yet presumes that only she can be correct in any conflict, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Again, SS preachers can enjoin obedience to oral preaching, under the premise and condition that it is Scriptural, which such apostolic preaching was. Even the whole church went “preaching the word.” (Acts 8:4) But such men as David and the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, neither of even Rome claims to do, but Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

The indefectible Church

Epic fail. While the magisterium office is Scriptural and needful, both men and writings of God were assuredly, correctly discerned as being so by men lng before Catholicism presumed it was essential for this, which she does in order to protect herself when charged with conflict with it. And as a body (canon) of inspired writings was established as authoritative by the time of Christ — as is abundantly evident by the many reference o them, without dispute on this by those who sat in the seat of Moses, but without an infallible magisterium, then likewise could the rest of the 66 book canon become established as Scripture. Which is essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation.

After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18)

And it has not, despite Catholicism largely becoming as the gates of Hell for multitudes, for the only One True Church is that of the corporate body of Christ which always and only consists 100% of true believers, while the organic fellowships they are to gather together in inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares. The church itself began as a remnant of dissenter.

and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Despite what RCs must imagine this means, you cannot certainly get that the church of Rome is the supreme infallible deterministic authority on Truth out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar and ground the truth," and excluding the subject being God, or the church supporting (pillar) and settled on the Truth. (cf. 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23 ) The NT church owes its validity to established Scripture to which the magisterial stewards of Scripture are subject to.

Rome presumes that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)\t being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

However, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4) .

In summation, it is manifest that writing is God's chosen means of preservation, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme, substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced.

And that the veracity of oral preaching was dependent upon and subject to testing by Scripture, with the former being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

And that SS preachers themselves can can enjoin obedience to oral preaching, under the premise and condition that it is Scriptural, which such apostolic preaching was. But such men as David and the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, neither of even Rome claims to do, but her veracity is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Thus the burden of Rome is to prove that she speaks or writes as wholly inspired of God, or failing this (which she does), that she cannot err whenever declaring that believers are bound to believe things which the NT is not shown believing, or even are absent from the wholly of Scripture, and even may lack evidence from early history. And that an infallible magisterium is essential for knowing what revelation is from God. All of which she cannot show without her arguments for herself being circular.

Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus the recourse by no less than Manning when faced with challenges from even history:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...

I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

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.