And a few non-members of some loosely bound federation that resembles a ping list, but isn't
And a few non-members of some loosely bound federation that resembles a ping list, but isn't
Interesting...
All of the scriptural quotes were written by people within the Church. Followed by those who held to the traditions of the Church. Followed by those whom decided the books that you claim to the Bible.
These arguements remind me of liberals today that inheirited the constitution of the US and now want it on their terms...instead of calling it Sola Scriptura it is a biased interpretation.
Christ in Revelation praises two churches, one which is the Messenger of the Church of Smyrna. This is St Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna, disciple of St John. Maybe you ought to read what the Lord praised (unless you think that the Lord did not know what St John has passed on to St Polycarp...but then we have a different problem).
St Polycarp is teaching that to "not" believe that in reality the very body and blood of the Lord is in the cup is antichrist. Even though it is a mystery to the early church...the disciples of St John understood it's significance (read St Ignatius, also a disciple of St John).
Don't see many Sola Scriptura experts claiming this fact.
Today, GOP and Dems can parse the constitution till it screams and both believe they are right (or left). The same with scripture. The problem is there is one Truth and one final arbitor...The Spirit of Truth promised to the Church and confirmed by Christ on the Island of Patmos (confirmed by giving the 2nd generation messenger an A+).
By the way, St Polycarp also speaks of other matters that Christ confirms that might be of similar interest to someone really seeking Truth (and not just trying to justify themselves with many words).
Who would you trust to interpret the constitution more, those that were there learing from the original writers or those removed by centuries. Sure, the latter may be what you want to hear, but the former is closer to the Truth.
Is such an idea founded in reality? Of course not. It is rationalization of oral tradition, not proof of it.As far as I'm concerned, "of course not" is not a dispositive argument. In fact, it's not an argument at all. This is not an argument, it's a statement of a position and some of its implications.
The argument in this article is circular (and verbose: the existence of a lot of verses about reading accomplishes nothing logically)and based on suppositions outside of Scripture.
I am not criticizing the proposition, just the argument.
SPOTREP
Consider this passage: "because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."
First, nothing in the passage actually states what it is claimed to state. ~((~A->~B)->(A->B))!
Besides "This book" refers to the Covenant of Moses, to which Christians added 88 books.
Again, 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 states that scripture is sufficient, which is the Catholic view. It hardly states that any doctrine not in scripture is false.
The use of the passage about the tempting in the desert (Matthew 4:4-11) is downright incredible. By chopping the passage into bits, the article recasts the story as if citing scripture were superior than using tradition. But what it shows is that the devil and Jesus both cite scripture. Where Jesus defeats the devil rhetorically is his refusal to act pridefully, even though he alone is glorious. Likewise the passage from Matthew 21 merely show that Jesus cites scripture.
Not one of the passage actually states that a doctrine not found in scripture is inherently incorrect.
Of course, the interesting thing about all this, is that the entire argument is based on a straw man against the Catholic Church, because while the Church recognizes the fact that sola scriptura is a self-contradicting argument, the Catholic church bases all but two doctrines solely on deduction from scripture. The church never concedes to the false accusations that it's doctrines are non-scriptural, but merely rejects the assertion that what it binds on Earth is not bound in Heaven, and what it looses on Earth is not loosed in Heaven. (Two doctrines are discerned through induction.)
Now, let's look at the passage from Augustine. Is he really establishing sola scriptura? If I argue strictly from the evidence presented in this article, what Augustine says is this:
"This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves."
What Augustine is proposing is not sola scriptura! Augustine presents scripture, herein, not as the sole source of truth, but that which should be defered to in all matters which are unknowable. (I believe, if I recall this passage correctly correctly, he is discussing creationism. H is argument is, essentially, that, lacking any other means to discern creation, we must default to what scripture says.)
I'll stick to this main point, and ignore the ad-straw-hominem of the passage entitled, "Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?"
It would be great if Christianity really took this heart. But don't get me started about the 4th commandment or God's Holy days.
Oh my.....!
They forgot one:
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Actually, calling it 'Sola Scriptura' might be contrued as a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God.
Couldn't agree more. We are warned of false prophets, thus there will probably continue to be true prophets. How do you tell the difference?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
I sense another "Bondage of the Will" thread here... ;)
Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
AMEN
Easy question!
Have a great day!
-Theo
7,713 words to live by. Great post. Now, on to the debate....
Excellent posting! I'm saving this for future reference.
Sincerely
A good rule of thumb: Whatever diminishes the vicarious atonement of Christ Jesus on behalf of the sin of the world ought to be treated as suspect, to say the least. It is our nature to introduce "extras" where they are not necessary or helpful. What part of "It is finished" don't we understand?
In general we do well to have an eye toward all of history and not be like Democrats who think it begins this morning. That means decency and order where the biblical texts are dispensed, contemplated, and received for what they are: God's own dealing with us graciously despite our terrible inclinations, attitudes, and actions.
My response is based upon the thread title alone. Will try to wade through the body as time and opportunity allow.
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).
This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.
The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:
a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).
b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).
So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).
"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."
But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses
bookmark
"Actually, calling it 'Sola Scriptura' might be contrued as a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God."
The above quote is very important in understanding the Reformers idea of "sola scriptura" in that it really meant SUPREME OR FINAL UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY rather than no other authorities in the life of a Christian. Common sense and tradition, as a part of what may be termed "general revelation" have a place in guiding a Christian, where direction cannot be clearly discerned from the bible...we get advice from other Christians (call it "tradition" if they are from the past) and intelligence/education all the time--which is fine, in fact the best attitude, as long as we put these authorities under the supreme authority of scripture. This counters too the common Roman assumption of hyper-individualism of Protestants... a "bible alone and I" way of looking at things...which surely leads to schism and error.
All and all an excellent post, well argued.