Posted on 01/03/2014 12:22:14 PM PST by redleghunter
As we established yesterday, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church's teaching authority, and in light of "living tradition." De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the "Sacred Scripture . . . written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records."
This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tr adition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at gty.org ...
No, any more than he can by simply reading the Bible. It's the child-like acceptance of the Lord that is at the heart of salvation. Love, not theology.
Suppose he is led away from truth by an apostate or heretical priest, such as those who gave "lberation theology"?
People will not be judged for something that was not their fault. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." - John 15:22
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 1
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 1
John MacArthur
The tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion. The world is filled with religions that have been following set traditions for hundreds--even thousands--of years. Cultures come and go, but religious tradition shows an amazing continuity.
In fact, many ancient religions--including Druidism, Native American religions, and several of the oriental cults--eschewed written records of their faith, preferring to pass down their legends and rituals and dogmas via word-of-mouth. Such religions usually treat their body of traditions as a de facto authority equal to other religions' sacred writings.
Even among the world's religions that revere sacred writings, however, tradition and Scripture are often blended. This is true in Hinduism, for example, where the ancient Vedas are the Scriptures, and traditions handed down by gurus round out the faith of most followers. Tradition in effect becomes a lens through which the written word is interpreted. Tradition therefore stands as the highest of all authorities, because it renders the only authoritative interpretation of the sacred writings.
This tendency to view tradition as supreme authority is not unique to pagan religions. Traditional Judaism, for example, follows the Scripture-plus-tradition paradigm. The familiar books of the Old Testament alone are viewed as Scripture, but true orthodoxy is actually defined by a collection of ancient rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud. In effect, the traditions of the Talmud carry an authority equal to or greater than that of the inspired Scriptures.
Teaching as Doctrines the Precepts of Men
This is no recent development within Judaism. The Jews of Jesus' day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.
Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:
"Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that" (Mk. 7:6-13).
It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters:"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2).
They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of "authority": "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it" (Deut. 12:32).
So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exod. 34:27), and that written record of God's Word became the basis for God's covenant with the nation (Exod. 24:4,7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses' successor, Joshua:
Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it (Josh. 1:7-8).
Of course, other books of inspired Scripture beside those written by Moses were later added to the Jewish canon--but this was a prerogative reserved by God alone. Sola Scriptura was therefore established in principle with the giving of the law. No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly innovation was to be accorded authority equal to the revealed Word of God as recorded in Scripture.
Solomon understood this principle: "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Prov. 30:5-6).
The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20, KJV).
In short, tradition had no legitimate place of authority in the worship of Jehovah.
Everything was to be tested by the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. That's why Jesus' rebuke to the scribes and Pharisees was so harsh. Their very faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a serious transgression of the covenant and commandments of God (cf. Matt. 15:3).
The Rise and Ruin of Catholic Tradition
Unfortunately, Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself.
How did this happen? The earliest Church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition. Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities. The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly. The authority was in the appeal to Scripture, not in the councils per se.
Unfortunately, the question of Scriptural authority itself was not always clearly delineated in the early church, and as the church grew in power and influence, church leaders began to assert an authority that had no basis in Scripture. The church as an institution became in many people's eyes the fountain of authority and the arbiter on all matters of truth. Appeals began to be made more often to tradition than to Scripture. As a result, extrabiblical doctrines were canonized and a body of truth that found no support in Scripture began to be asserted as infallibly true.
Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ--none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition.
Officially, the Catholic Church is very straightforward about her blending of Scripture and tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (CCC 82, emphasis added).
Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much "the Word of God" as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture "are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal" (CCC 80). The "sacred deposit of faith"--this admixture of Scripture and tradition--was supposedly entrusted by the apostles to their successors (CCC 84), and "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. . . . This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" (CCC 85).
The Catechism is quick to deny that this makes the Church's teaching authority (called the magisterium) in any way superior to the Word of God itself (CCC 86). But it then goes on to warn the faithful that they must "read the Scripture within 'the living tradition of the whole Church'" (CCC 113). The Catechism at this point quotes "a saying of the Fathers[:] Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word" (CCC 113).
So in effect, tradition is not only made equal to Scripture; but it becomes the true Scripture, written not in documents, but mystically within the Church herself. And when the Church speaks, Her voice is heard as if it were the voice of God, giving the only true meaning to the words of the "documents and records. "Thus tradition utterly supplants and supersedes Scripture.
Bind and loose what??? Give us an example where something was bound and loosed...
In order to make such an assertion you would have to point out what 'traditions' were created in the Protestant/Evangelical "mixing bowl." Hank H. was correct. The Gospel of Grace as presented in the NT by the apostles is embraced by Arminians and Calvinists. A wise man once said to me "the Calvinists are a bit too confident and the Arminians are worry warts...we do well to listen to them both.":) That about sums it up.
CynicalBear, you tell me first that all a man needs is to search the Scriptures with the Holy Spirit. Then when I say I’ve done so, and I happen to agree with the Church’s 1500 year old constant teaching on this, you pull the rug out from under me and tell me I can’t possibly be right.
Seems to me you want complete freedom to disagree with the Catholic Church while denying me my freedom to agree with it.
Unless you have an infallible Holy Ghost detector in your pocket CynicalBear there’s no way on earth you can tell me I’m wrong. I think Chesley has been much more fair on the issue...at least leaving the door open to the possibility.
The scripture didn’t leave any “doors open” for error.
Well let's go to neutral ground for a mere moment without going in the weeds. I have seen Roman Catholics cite the Didache to show church traditions in practice.
Didache on the Lord's Supper
Didache 9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
Didache 9:2 First, as regards the cup: We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
Didache 9:3 Then as regarding the broken bread: We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
Didache 9:4 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
Didache 9:5 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs.
Didache 10:1 And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:
Didache 10:2 We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
Didache 10:3 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name's sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee; but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.
Didache 10:4 Before all things we give Thee thanks that Thou art powerful; Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
Roman Catholics usually pick up on the word "Eucharist" and say "ah ha see just like we have today!" Which, when we look at the Greek word 'eucharistia' it means "Thanksgiving." No more no less. Today to some churces it may mean something more than originally used. How the doctrine of transubstantiation came from what is in the NT and in the Didache is unknown.
Wow, a very good and insightful question. Being serious here. I believe you find God's complete Truth in the scriptures and His plan of salvation. This what I believe:
2 Timothy 3:
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So as not to dodge you direct question...From the above passage I believe all Truth we need to know about salvation, God's Glory and how to live holy lives acceptable to Him are in His Written Word.
Let me please ask a counter question...What not contained in scriptures is necessary for all Truth we need to know about salvation, God's Glory and how to live holy lives acceptable to Him?
I pray that more Catholics and those now on these threads promoting the “Hebrew roots” cult hear God’s words and renounce the “traditions of men”.
Post #14 case in point.
Hey hosepipe nice day we’re having? Sun came up today and such. If you want to start a separate thread “hosepipe’s personal revelations” you are free to do so, you know that.
What exactly is "X" and what is "Y"? Is there a "Z"? Are there potential multiple answers to Luke 24, Romans 10, and 1 Corinthians 15? When the apostles said "A" to be saved, was their message incomplete? Is there some confusion on the definition of the Gospel?
No doubt there are false prot and evangelical pastors out there. But I don't think you would say all of your priests speak dogma and truth with all purity and infallibility all the time either right? I mean none of those pedophile and pederast priests were representing mother church while dispensing sacraments right?
When you read these verses that say 'eat my flesh' and 'my flesh is food indeed' and my body is bread, it's easy to see a connection between Jesus' flesh and bread...
But when one sees in the same context in the same chapter that eating and drinking these things which are connected to Jesus that you will never thirst nor hunger again, it's time to look at these verses more closely...And search for other scriptures that might unlock and unfold what you've clearly missed...
YOu then discover that nowhere in the scriptures are you told that unknown to the senses that bread and wine is literally meat and blood...Nowhere are you told that someone must or will or can take on this feat and turn Jesus' flesh into blood and wine...Nowhere are you told that God will do this for you...And nowhere is anyone instructed to do it...
So you continue to search the scriptures...
When some guy comes up and says, 'hey I can do this thing that you want that the scriptures are silent about, and when it's over, nothing has changed, it's time to seriously question the guy that makes the claim...
And then when you see the scripture that says pay no mind to what you put into your mouth, like the bread some guy told you was really Jesus' flesh, it goes out into the sewer in a few minutes anyway...
Then, it's time to get back into the scriptures to find what you missed...
Which came first—the Church or the Bible’s New Testament? I think it’s fair to say that the Church (now the Roman Catholic Church) selected what went into the New Testament, and for some 1500 years, the Bible’s New Testament stored what the Church selected. To my knowledge, the Church has not deselected any of those early choices. Yet, those who say they believe in the dominance of scripture over Church (or “man”) have both deselected and emphasized various passages and seem to deny the Church’s role in selecting and storing them.
If, then, one accepts the notion of sola scriptura, isn’t he putting the horse behind the cart? And (you knew this would come up) WHOSE sola scriptura?
Who wrote the NT? Did the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms come before the church and did they (the OT scriptures) testify to Christ? Did the bi-pedal NT beings (the apostles) write down what they seen, heard and spoke so generations who would be blessed by believing and not seeing could know? So who came first Christ or the church? His Word or the apostles?
Your argument would be most valid for someone in the church prior to the bi-pedal NT beings inking it down.
I also believe that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation but not the only thing. I also believe that people can be saved who never even heard of the Bible, including Jewish people who only accept just parts.
Outstanding post, I think McArthur is spot on here. It is rare to see the connection made between Judaism's Talmudic tradtions and the RCC's traditions. Neither are scripture.
Would you please post your scriptural basis for that belief?
Therein lays the problem. When someone believes something other than scripture is the authority why would there be a drive to “search the scriptures”?
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.