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

There IS a reason that the Commandments are the first thing that we Lutherans tend to teach when Confirmation time rolls around.

It’s just that we don’t find salvation in them. That doesn’t mean they’re not VERY important.

1: To curb evil and sinful impulses.
2: To show us ourselves and how much we need Jesus.
3: To give us a guide through life.

We believe what the Bible says, after all. It contains the Prophets and the Law and the writing of the Apostles.

Scripture says that salvation is because of grace through faith, not works. There is that oft-quoted passage in James, though, and we believe that as well. But because of the seeming contradiction, we need to look elsewhere in Scripture to try to figure out what it means.

So, just to make things clear about what LCMS Lutherans and I myself believe, at least re: salvation.

Salvation is by God’s grace alone. That grace is given/shown to us in the Word and in Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. By faith, we believe in that grace, and by that grace, that undeserved kindess, we are given salvation.

But by faith, we also try to live our earthly lives according to the word of God. A faith, a belief in the promises of the Lord that does not then try to please the Lord is an empty faith—which is what James was speaking of when he wrote about faith. He defined it himself earlier in his writing. When James writes of faith, he defines it as the kind of ‘faith’ that just says, ‘Jesus exists.’ Not ‘I trust in the Lord.’

Additionally, without Christ, all our good works are as filthy rags anyways.

Come the return of Jesus, we will give an account of our works. Those who have faith will have done good works, and because God sees us through Jesus, even the filthy rags that were our righteous works before will be seen as good works.

Those who have the foundation of faith without works will still inherit eternal life, but the rewards of such will be lesser than those whose earthly life was full of faithful work.

Anyways, I’m sure we can discuss that, but I’ve gotta run and get some errands done.

As posted on another thread:

The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XVI Clement (150-215 AD) goes into great detail about the use of scripture and tradition. The chapter title is Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy Are Distinguished. He states, in part, the following:

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."

Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. ...

Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts. And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul. For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures.

...For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.

He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things....For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers...

Those who would argue that scripture was not available are at odds with what Clement has written. Apparently scripture was available enough in 200AD that common believers could have access. It doesn't seem to be an issue with Clement.

Clement has far more to say in this chapter-these are only some brief highlights. As Clement points out from the above passage; 1) people were adding to the scripture (note with Mary), 2) people would take passages of scripture and frame heretical beliefs from them, or 3) they use scripture to justify their actions rather than letting scripture expose their corruption.

Most importantly, Clement makes very clear that a truly faithful person will be guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit. "Apostolic tradition" to Clement was the teachings of the apostles. Clement states:

But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved

He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] as faithful.

The idea that there was ever some oral tradition does not square with the writings of Clement. Moreover, Clement would call it heresy.

You are arguing against positions that I do not, in fact, hold.

The verses in question, from your Post #133 (1 Cor. 11:25-27; version?):

“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.”
Here are the positions that seem to me to be your positions:

========

1. Post #133:

. . (a) . . . Communion is, yes, the real Body and Blood of Christ.
. . (b) And also bread and wine . . .
. . (c) . . . because that’s ALSO what Jesus says they are.
. . (d) How? No idea, . . .
. . (e) . . . but Scripture is our source of truth, . . .
. . (f) . . . and that’s what it says.
. . (g) . . . you CAN make an argument solely from Scripture about the whole Communion thing.

=========

2. Post #142:

. . (a) Scripture states clearly that it is both.
. . (b) . . . because Jesus rose from the dead . . . being . . . God . . .
. . (c) . . . he laid his stamp of approval on it . . .
. . (d) Therefore . . I believe it.
. . (e) Don’t ask me how it’s true because I don’t know; . . .
. . (f) . . . I only know it is.

======

Query 1: Are the above not your positions?

Query 2: Is stating them thus equivalent to putting words in your mouth, or did you not submit these positions?
=======

3. Post #233: . . (a) I... don’t think that we quite understand each other.
. . (b) You are arguing against positions that I do not, in fact, hold.
. . (c) All I’m saying at the moment is that Jesus was being literal when he said, paraphrased, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
. . (d) And that Paul confirms it.
. . (e) I have no idea where you got everything else you posted.
. . (f) . . . so much of it seems to be trying to put words into my mouth.

=======

I thought I completely understood what you said, so my reply in Post #141 was directed to your points in #133, namely 1. (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) above, implying a refutation of 1. (g), to wit.

If you did not understand what I said in that post, why did you answer it in #143 as if you did?

In Post #202, perhaps I thought you had sufficient Biblical background for you to appreciate that your administration of Communion presumes that it is a re-sacrifice of Jesus. I also took it for granted that your training had taught you that one of Jesus' great aims in teaching was to accustom his students (and subsequently also us) to grasp figurative-literal language as well as plain-literal language in understanding literal interpretation of the then-existing Scripture, and to differentiate the two modes. His training vehicle was explaining to them the meaning of His parables, for of this we find in the Scriptures:

Mt. 13:34 AV:
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: . . ."

Mk. 4:34 AV
"But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."

From the absence of negative reaction of His inner circle to Jesus' claims in Jn. 6:53,61, and 66, as well as at the initiation of the Remembrance memorial, we must conclude that His disciples were well-accustomed to dealing with the significance of symbolic spiritual meanings, and not be offended that the bread did not literally taste like flesh meat, and the wine still tasted like wine and not warm human blood. Their ability to think in abstract figurative terms was such that they were not too surprised at this new ordinance, and in the symbolic terms in which it was couched.

In contrast, the general audience was not used to dealing with figures of speech in explaining Bible truths, for they saw and saw and did not perceive, they heard and heard but did not understand, lest they be saved without faith. These hearers had no appreciation of symbolism in communicationg spiritual precepts.

And so, apparently neither have you been trained sufficiently in hermeneutics and logic, or you wouldn't be saying that we don't understand each other. Even then, it is not clear to you that I do understand you, but either you do not comprehend what I wrote to address your viewpoint, or you do not accept my positions as valid debating arguments.

Is this not so?

(No offense intended, just an observation of the status of our communication and interpretive methods.)

The bottom line is that, through correct interpretation methods, the facts must be that the bread of the memorial supper is not the actual flesh of Jesus' body; and the wine of that ritual is only an emblem of the Blood shed on the Cross, not actually Jesus' exsanguinated Blood; and your Lutheran position on it is not acceptable within the principles and boundaries of accepted literal interpretation. It is arrived at by an out-of-bounds punting of the passages involved.

You go ahead and say that the tokens of the Sacrifice are both real (actual flesh and blood) and at the same really bread and grape juice, which is nonsense. (For instance, the alcoholic content of table wine absolutely rules it out from ever being considered as represented as human blood, let alone being the same as it through some kind of theosophical contortions.) Then you say that that is true that they concurrently exist as being identical (2.(e) above), but to not ask you how because you do NOT know, then immediately aver that (f) you DO know! Isn't that an unreasonable request, and a wholly illogical proposition?

IMHO.

It is not the object. It is The Holy Spirit moving through the hem of Jesus’ garment, or Paul’s napkin. It is God’s Spirit. God is the power.

These objects were not kept and used repeatedly over time for healing, or they would have been worshiped. God doesn’t want that.

Remember the bronze serpent that was lifted up in the wilderness? The Israelites were worshiping it because at one time it had been used by The LORD to heal people, as a types of Jesus Christ, when He would be lifted up for our forgiveness and healing. The word “Nehushtan” means “a thing of brass”.

This is written for our learning and application. We must never pass the line and worship anything material, or even give it undue “veneration”. It isn’t necessary. What is always necessary is to worship God Himself, and only Him.
_____________________________________________________________

2Ki 18:1
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.

2:Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.

3:And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.

4:He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

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.