Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

[inkaneer]

How did the Jews know what was the the Canon of the Old Testament?
Did the RCC tell them in 530AD?

The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

Wasn’t there a difference in the Jewish Canon between the Greek and Hebrew?

The Jewish scriptures both the Greek version [The Septuagint] as well as the Hebrew version were identical for a period of almost 300 years from the inception of the Septuagint in about 200 BC until about 80 AD. This included the years during life of Christ and most of the Apostles. That is they both had the same books and the same number of books and that number was 46. The Jewish scriptures did not change until about 70-80 AD when Rabbi’s from Jerusalem felt threatened by the “new writings” enacted new rules for any writing to be included in the Jewish scriptures. These rabi’s were those Jews who rejected Christianity and did not want the christian writings perverting their scriptures. These “new writings” were what we now call the New Testament and were mostly in Greek. So the new rules stated that a scripture writing must be in Hebrew or Aramaic. A problem arose in that seven books of the heretofore accepted scriptures did not meet the new requirements and had to be dropped. Now it must be remembered that these rabbi’s were not christian and in fact were anti christian. Protestants have taken their decision and applied it to their bibles ripping out seven books of the OT. Luther removed these seven books because he knew they contained some things that he personally did not care for. He saw in them scriptural proofs for such things as purgatory, prayers for the dead and indulgences. So Luther solved his problem by opting for the later Jewish scriptures and not those that Jesus and the Apostles used. But that was Luther. What about the other protestants? Why would protestants accept the decision of anti christians over christians is beyond me but maybe the protestants here can explain it.

 

[Josh128]

The head if the Catholic church speaks for Catholics, the head of the Methodist Church speaks for Methodists, the head of the Baptist Church speak for Baptists, etc…

Has there ever been a single voice on Earth to speak for all Christians?

James was the leader of the church that was located in Jerusalem, until Rome destroyed in 70 AD.

I recall Paul correcting Peter on certain doctrines of circumcision for Gentiles.
Who was the authority there?

Hey Redbert, to clarify ( by all means correct me if you think Im wrong ), Paul did not correct Peter on any doctrine or teaching of circumcision for the Gentiles. What Paul did do was rebuke and correct Peter for HIS ACTIONS in withdrawing from eating with the gentiles after receiving harsh criticism from the Jerusalem Jews. Peter had previously taught (Acts 11:3-18) that the uncircumcised were in fact “given the same grace” as the circumcised. This is what Peter taught, from his vision of the sheet at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea.

Apparently, at some time Peter succumbed to pressure from the Jerusalem Jews and refrained from eating with the Gentiles in a moment of weakness. He sinned in that regard, which is why Paul rebuked him. Never did Peter teach after his vision in Caesarea, which occurred BEFORE the rebuke of Paul, that the uncircumcised are not given the same grace as the circumcised. Peter simply sinned, as all men do, in a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do” out of fear of the Jerusalem converts, just as he had done out of fear of the Jews when he denied Jesus 3 times after saying he never would.

Would you contend that Peter does not have the capacity to sin? What about Pauls own hypocrisy in Acts 16:1-3-- “He (Paul) reached (also) Derbe and Lystra where there was a disciple named Timothy… and Paul wanted him to come along with him. On account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” For such a stern proponent of the uncircumcised, why did Paul bow to pressure from the Jews to have a Greek circumcised?

A matter of doctrine, I think not-- a moment of weakness in an effort to pacify the Jews,
I think so…

 

[Josh128]

The Jewish scriptures both the Greek version [The Septuagint] as well as the Hebrew version were identical for a period of almost 300 years from the inception of the Septuagint in about 200 BC until about 80 AD. This included the years during life of Christ and most of the Apostles. That is they both had the same books and the same number of books and that number was 46. The Jewish scriptures did not change until about 70-80 AD when Rabbi’s from Jerusalem felt threatened by the “new writings” enacted new rules for any writing to be included in the Jewish scriptures. These rabi’s were those Jews who rejected Christianity and did not want the christian writings perverting their scriptures. These “new writings” were what we now call the New Testament and were mostly in Greek. So the new rules stated that a scripture writing must be in Hebrew or Aramaic. A problem arose in that seven books of the heretofore accepted scriptures did not meet the new requirements and had to be dropped. Now it must be remembered that these rabbi’s were not christian and in fact were anti christian. Protestants have taken their decision and applied it to their bibles ripping out seven books of the OT. Luther removed these seven books because he knew they contained some things that he personally did not care for. He saw in them scriptural proofs for such things as purgatory, prayers for the dead and indulgences. So Luther solved his problem by opting for the later Jewish scriptures and not those that Jesus and the Apostles used. But that was Luther. What about the other protestants? Why would protestants accept the decision of anti christians over christians is beyond me but maybe the protestants here can explain it.

Can you cite references to support the bolded parts? Ive never heard that the Palestinian Jews ever accepted the Deuterocanonicals. What I do know is that the Dead Sea Scrolls which date during the time of or before Christ DO include the Deuteros, and that they were accepted by the Alexandrian Jews.

Not saying you are mistaken here, but its matter of fact statements like this that can get us into trouble sometimes if we cant back them up. Please cite some (any) references to back this up if you can.

Josh

 

[Loude]

The Jewish scriptures both the Greek version [The Septuagint] as well as the Hebrew version were identical for a period of almost 300 years from the inception of the Septuagint in about 200 BC until about 80 AD. This included the years during life of Christ and most of the Apostles. That is they both had the same books and the same number of books and that number was 46. The Jewish scriptures did not change until about 70-80 AD when Rabbi’s from Jerusalem felt threatened by the “new writings” enacted new rules for any writing to be included in the Jewish scriptures. These rabi’s were those Jews who rejected Christianity and did not want the christian writings perverting their scriptures. These “new writings” were what we now call the New Testament and were mostly in Greek. So the new rules stated that a scripture writing must be in Hebrew or Aramaic. A problem arose in that seven books of the heretofore accepted scriptures did not meet the new requirements and had to be dropped. Now it must be remembered that these rabbi’s were not christian and in fact were anti christian. Protestants have taken their decision and applied it to their bibles ripping out seven books of the OT. Luther removed these seven books because he knew they contained some things that he personally did not care for. He saw in them scriptural proofs for such things as purgatory, prayers for the dead and indulgences. So Luther solved his problem by opting for the later Jewish scriptures and not those that Jesus and the Apostles used. But that was Luther. What about the other protestants? Why would protestants accept the decision of anti christians over christians is beyond me but maybe the protestants here can explain it.

This was he point I was going to make. You made it better then I would have. Thank You.

 

[Josh128]

This was he point I was going to make. You made it better then I would have. Thank You.

Can anyone back up this claim with any historic writings or evidence? Where is this coming from?

 

[inkaneer]

Can anyone back up this claim with any historic writings or evidence? Where is this coming from?

Are we agreed that the Septuagint was the Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek in about 250-200 BC? If we agree then we have to ask from where did the deuteros come from if not from those same Hebrew Scriptures? Is there any evidence of a second source? Is there any evidence of any change in the Septuagint? I know of none but maybe you do. If so, please tell us.

 

[Loude]

Can anyone back up this claim with any historic writings or evidence? Where is this coming from?

There is a very short informative book I read some time ago that goes into detail that may be of as much help to you as it was to me. (Where We Got The Bible ? Our Debt To The Catholic Church) By Henry G. Graham. It just so happens to be published by Catholic Answers.

 

[Josh128]

Are we agreed that the Septuagint was the Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek in about 250-200 BC? If we agree then we have to ask from where did the deuteros come from if not from those same Hebrew Scriptures? Is there any evidence of a second source? Is there any evidence of any change in the Septuagint? I know of none but maybe you do. If so, please tell us.

We are agreed there in some part. Some of the deuteros were written in Hebrew or Aramaic–however, there is total agreement that Wisdom, II Maccabees, and the addition/enlargement of Daniel were originally composed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. This contradicts the notion that they were ever a part of the original Hebrew bible. This is what I mean when I say we must be cautious about making such bold claims.

Now, the books composed in Hebrew may have very well at one time been accepted by the Palestinian Jews, but its very unlikely that the Greek compositions were. They were however, accepted by the Alexandrian Jews and furthermore accepted at least in some part by the New Testament authors, because they all used the Septuagint for quoting OT passages, even if no scriptures from the deuteros were used. Being that we are Christian, and not Jewish, I agree they should be accepted as the earliest Christians did, but I also agree with the notion that they should not be considered on quite the same level as the protos…

Thoughts?

 

[adriancombe]

Protestants are quite fond of bringing up any scripture that mentions tradition and then proceed to beat up Catholics with it since they presume they are based solely on the Word of God (the Bible) and not tradition. However, the major rallying cry of the Reformation was “SOLA SCRIPTURA”. If a Protestant will not accept this as a Protestant tradition they are self-deceived – at best.

But Jesus Himself gave us A standard (which IMO is not the only standard by any means - but a good one for this conversation) by which to judge tradition. Tradition CANNOT void the Word of God. For the sake of helping the Protestant let’s limit our focus on the Word of God to the Bible. Tradition cannot make void the Bible. Does SOLA SCRIPTURA pass that test? NO, in fact, it fails miserably. Why? because with all the various “interpretations” of scripture that this Protestant Template has devised it has effectively emasculated the Bible and effectively made it VOID and of NONE EFFECT. Thereby SOLA SCRIPTURA fails Jesus’ test because no honest soul seeking truth can find security in what other honest sincere souls say the Bible means. SOLA SCRIPTURA makes the Bible ineffective and useless.

For the sake of the Protestant tradition of SOLA SCRIPTURA, you have made void the word of God.

MonFrere

An even more serious (although more subtle) problem for the anti-Catholic polemicist is the OT passage Jesus cites to support His statement in v. 9

ματην δε σεβονται με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας εντάλματα ανθρώπων
in vain they worship me, teaching teachings commandments of humans

which is a direct quote of the ** Septuagint** of Isaiah 29:13. The Hebrew reads

‘their fear of me is taught by the precept of men’

so we see Jesus using the LXX over the Hebrew to make a point about invalid traditions. This is a stumbling block for the intellectually honest objector to the Catholic Church. If purgatory is real, sola fide is pretty shot. So most who disbelieve purgatory don’t include the deuterocanonicals, since 2 Maccabees endorses prayers for the dead. When challenged, they say the real Canon is the Hebrew canon, the Jews reject the OT works that originated in Greek etc. There are of course many holes in the Jewish canon position. But it is ironic that the ‘tradition of men’ passage used by opponents of the Catholic faith is the one that gives the lie to their ‘tradition of men’ which insists on the Hebrew Canon.

 

[adriancombe]

An even more serious (although more subtle) problem for the anti-Catholic polemicist is the OT passage Jesus cites to support His statement in v. 9

ματην δε σεβονται με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας εντάλματα ανθρώπων
in vain they worship me, teaching teachings commandments of humans

which is a direct quote of the ** Septuagint** of Isaiah 29:13. The Hebrew reads

‘their fear of me is taught by the precept of men’

so we see Jesus using the LXX over the Hebrew to make a point about invalid traditions. This is a stumbling block for the intellectually honest objector to the Catholic Church. If purgatory is real, sola fide is pretty shot. So most who disbelieve purgatory don’t include the deuterocanonicals, since 2 Maccabees endorses prayers for the dead. When challenged, they say the real Canon is the Hebrew canon, the Jews reject the OT works that originated in Greek etc. There are of course many holes in the Jewish canon position. But it is ironic that the ‘tradition of men’ passage used by opponents of the Catholic faith is the one that gives the lie to their ‘tradition of men’ which insists on the Hebrew Canon.

I meant to include this for those who are interested, the original Hebrew of the second part of Is 29:1 reads:

ותה י יראתס אתי מצות רגשי מלמטה

 

[inkaneer]

We are agreed there in some part. Some of the deuteros were written in Hebrew or Aramaic–however, there is total agreement that Wisdom, II Maccabees, and the addition/enlargement of Daniel were originally composed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. This contradicts the notion that they were ever a part of the original Hebrew bible. This is what I mean when I say we must be cautious about making such bold claims.

Now, the books composed in Hebrew may have very well at one time been accepted by the Palestinian Jews, but its very unlikely that the Greek compositions were. They were however, accepted by the Alexandrian Jews and furthermore accepted at least in some part by the New Testament authors, because they all used the Septuagint for quoting OT passages, even if no scriptures from the deuteros were used. Being that we are Christian, and not Jewish, I agree they should be accepted as the earliest Christians did, but I also agree with the notion that they should not be considered on quite the same level as the protos…

Thoughts?

But you ignore the fact that the Septuagint was the translation of the Jewish scriptures into the Greek and was done at least 200 years before Christ. If the so called “deutero’s” did not come from the Hebrew scriptures then from whence did they come. Seems to me that the ball is in your court to prove that they were not part of the original Jewish scriptures by proving that they came from an outside source.

Now as far as your statement of: “…they should not be considered on quite the same level as the protos…”, it would be seem to me that once you accept them as the inspired word of God then such classsifications as to what level you consider them to be is totally meaningless. They either are or are not the inspired word of God and the teaching of the Church ever since the first Bible and as formally confirmed by the Council of Trent say they are indeed inspired of God. And that closes the book on the “deutero’s”. Just as the scripture tells us of the council of Jerusalem where there was much debate regarding the situation in Antioch, once Peter rose and spoke the debate ended. Same is true here. Trent has ended the debate on the “deutero’s”.

 

[Josh128]

But you ignore the fact that the Septuagint was the translation of the Jewish scriptures into the Greek and was done at least 200 years before Christ. If the so called “deutero’s” did not come from the Hebrew scriptures then from whence did they come. Seems to me that the ball is in your court to prove that they were not part of the original Jewish scriptures by proving that they came from an outside source.

Now as far as your statement of: “…they should not be considered on quite the same level as the protos…”, it would be seem to me that once you accept them as the inspired word of God then such classsifications as to what level you consider them to be is totally meaningless. They either are or are not the inspired word of God and the teaching of the Church ever since the first Bible and as formally confirmed by the Council of Trent say they are indeed inspired of God. And that closes the book on the “deutero’s”. Just as the scripture tells us of the council of Jerusalem where there was much debate regarding the situation in Antioch, once Peter rose and spoke the debate ended. Same is true here. Trent has ended the debate on the “deutero’s”.

Im not ignoring what the Septuagint is/was. Im just stating the scholarly consensus on those books. About the Greek vs Hebrew-- there is a problem there-- all scholars, even Catholic scholars, pretty much agree that those 3 texts I mentioned were ORIGINALLY COMPOSED IN GREEK, NOT HEBREW OR ARAMAIC. As to how they came to that conclusion, I dont have the details, but they ALL agree. So, if we are to believe the most studied scholars, which include Catholics ( and the Catholic Encyclopedia), those books most certainly were not translated from Hebrew to Greek, but were originally composed in Greek. Im sorry, but the evidence seems to be undeniable for these books at least, that the Palestinian Jews would not have included Greek composed books into their canon.

As for the second part

Josh128:

…they should not be considered on quite the same level as the protos

, perhaps I should have worded it differently, perhaps not. There is a reason the Catholic Church gave them the title of “deuterocanonicals”-- deutero means “2nd” or “secondary”. If what you say is true and Trent puts them on the same level as the Protos, why does the Church still refer to them as the “deuteros”? Why continue to use that qualifier?

 

[adriancombe]

Im not ignoring what the Septuagint is/was. Im just stating the scholarly consensus on those books. About the Greek vs Hebrew-- there is a problem there-- all scholars, even Catholic scholars, pretty much agree that those 3 texts I mentioned were ORIGINALLY COMPOSED IN GREEK, NOT HEBREW OR ARAMAIC. As to how they came to that conclusion, I dont have the details, but they ALL agree. So, if we are to believe the most studied scholars, which include Catholics ( and the Catholic Encyclopedia), those books most certainly were not translated from Hebrew to Greek, but were originally composed in Greek. Im sorry, but the evidence seems to be undeniable for these books at least, that the Palestinian Jews would not have included Greek composed books into their canon.

As for the second part
, perhaps I should have worded it differently, perhaps not. There is a reason the Catholic Church gave them the title of “deuterocanonicals”-- deutero means “2nd” or “secondary”. If what you say is true and Trent puts them on the same level as the Protos, why does the Church still refer to them as the “deuteros”? Why continue to use that qualifier?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org:

The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

(I only add my $.02 that deuterocanonical sounds significantly less pejorative than apocrypha)

 

[inkaneer]

Im not ignoring what the Septuagint is/was. Im just stating the scholarly consensus on those books. About the Greek vs Hebrew-- there is a problem there-- all scholars, even Catholic scholars, pretty much agree that those 3 texts I mentioned were ORIGINALLY COMPOSED IN GREEK, NOT HEBREW OR ARAMAIC. As to how they came to that conclusion, I dont have the details, but they ALL agree. So, if we are to believe the most studied scholars, which include Catholics ( and the Catholic Encyclopedia), those books most certainly were not translated from Hebrew to Greek, but were originally composed in Greek. Im sorry, but the evidence seems to be undeniable for these books at least, that the Palestinian Jews would not have included Greek composed books into their canon.

Did I say they were written in Hebrew or Aramaic? I don’t believe I did. I said they were in the Hebrew scriptures at the time that the Septuagint was translated [about 250-200 BC] and that is how they became part of the Septuagint. Maybe I should have said they were in the Jewish scriptures. But I did not intend to mean they were written in Hebrew. In fact I agree they weren’t written in Hebrew or Aramaic for that was the reason they were subsequently stricken from the Jerusalem canon.

As for the second part, perhaps I should have worded it differently, perhaps not. There is a reason the Catholic Church gave them the title of “deuterocanonicals”-- deutero means “2nd” or “secondary”. If what you say is true and Trent puts them on the same level as the Protos, why does the Church still refer to them as the “deuteros”? Why continue to use that qualifier?

The term Deuteros does mean secondary but does not mean they are second class writings. The proto canon writings received almost universal acceptance by the church in every locale. The deutero canon writings were also accepted by a very large majority of the local churches. But it was less than what the proto canonicals received. So be careful of how you understand the term “deuterocanonical” the distinction is only of degree of acceptance and not one was accepted and one was not. Both were accepted by a majority of the local churches. Read the article in the Catholic encyclopedia entitled Old Testament canon.

 

[Josh128]

Did I say they were written in Hebrew or Aramaic? I don’t believe I did. I said they were in the Hebrew scriptures at the time that the Septuagint was translated [about 250-200 BC] and that is how they became part of the Septuagint. Maybe I should have said they were in the Jewish scriptures. But I did not intend to mean they were written in Hebrew. In fact I agree they weren’t written in Hebrew or Aramaic for that was the reason they were subsequently stricken from the Jerusalem canon.

My point exactly-- but you said earlier that the Palestinian Jews accepted the deuteros (including the Greek writings) into their canon but later, because of Jesus, rejected them. That doesnt jive with what you just wrote in bold. If they were subsequently stricken from the Jerusalem canon because they were not written in Hebrew, what leads you to believe they were ever accepted by the Palestinian/Jerusalem Jews? We know that the Alexandrian Jews for the most part accepted them, this Im not debating at all. What evidence or writings do we have to back up the original claim that the Palestinian Jews accepted them?? Thats my point, we dont! At best, we have a “theory”, with nothing concrete at all to back it up. Personally, I really dont care as a Christian (Catholic) whether they did or not, but in discussing the deuteros apologetically, being honest with myself, looking always for the truth, until some evidence is presented, how can we make such a claim in good conscience?

The term Deuteros does mean secondary but does not mean they are second class writings. The proto canon writings received almost universal acceptance by the church in every locale. The deutero canon writings were also accepted by a very large majority of the local churches. But it was less than what the proto canonicals received. So be careful of how you understand the term “deuterocanonical” the distinction is only of degree of acceptance and not one was accepted and one was not. Both were accepted by a majority of the local churches. Read the article in the Catholic encyclopedia entitled Old Testament canon.

Already read it, long ago. I think it says in the same article that the 3 books discussed earlier were “most certainly” composed in Greek. Like I said earlier, Im not dissing the deuteros, but that name was applied to them for a reason. It seems, regardless of the official Church position, that there has always been some debate as to their canonocity. Perhaps I should have worded my statement differently-- I dont look upon them as “less inspired” than the protos, even though they have always been “less accepted”. The passage from Wisdom posted earlier in my opinion is very strong proof of 2 things:

1.) Wisdom was/is definitely inspired.
2.) The Gospel writers were definitely familiar with it.

Peace

 

[ChadS]

Despite the sola scriptura adherents claims that they can cite both tradition and councils as being authoritative they ultimately rely on one source of authority and one source only and unfortunately it’s not scripture. Their only source is their interpretation of scripture.

Everybody should read this critique of sola scriptura, and despite their claims, they fall into the same trap that their solo scriptura cousins fall into. They have all become their own popes picking and choosing what to belive and emphasize in their own theology. If an early Christian writer or Council happens to agree with them so much the better, that’s one more piece of evidence for their position. However, if they don’t, no worries, they can just dismiss it and ignore it. calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/is-sola-scriptura-in-the-bible-a-reply-to-r-c-sproul-jr/

This is what happens when believers willfully separate themselves from the Church Christ founded and ignore its tradition. They are like so many leaves floating along a river, free to go wherever the currents of their mind and interpretations take them.

ChadS

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites

Traditions outside of Scripture is what Jesus was ticked about.

But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechari’ah son of Berechi’ah, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

This is probably Jesus greatest demonstration of righteous anger aimed at the Pharisees for what amounts to labors or works put onto the people outside of His word. Woe, which was used seven times, means cursed or damned.

The New Testament authors, including the Lord, when dealing with spiritual truth always appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority.

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the exact effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not explicitly stated, yet are taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. But, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from overwhelming implicit biblical extensions.

 

[MonFrere]

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the exact effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not explicitly stated, yet are taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. But, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from overwhelming implicit biblical extensions.

Yes, and all the above doctrines were determined BY THE CHURCH. Which of these “dogmas” were determined by Protestant denominations? Not a one. Your camp has come up with “the Rapture” - the Health and Wealth Gospel - the Late Great Planet Earth and all manner of prophetic failures. Not a very impressive lot of doctrines when holding to SS. Our Church, by the Holy Spirit, was lead to understand the person of Christ and the nature of God – Doctrines that are absolutely foundational to Christianity AND at the same time not withholden to SS.

Protestants admit that SS was not the operating template by the OT Jews or the NT Church as reflected in the scriptures of those first decades after the first Pentecost. You would have us believe that “somewhere in time” SS became operational. A point that I like to make is that Jesus disciples heard Jesus absolutely rail at the Pharisees for their corrupt traditions AND IN SPITE OF THAT still tell the Church to hold to the traditions they’ve been taught. Like I began this thread – the real test of Tradition is that if it makes the word of God of none effect. The fruit of the Protestant Tradition of SS are ideas like the Rapture and the Health and Wealth Gospel and all manner of The End of the World prophesies – all doctrines that made the word of God of none effect. The fruit of Catholic Tradition is the doctrines of the Trinity and the Nature of God and the Person of Christ – doctrines foundation to all of Christianity.

MonFrere

 

[ChadS]

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the exact effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not explicitly stated, yet are taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. But, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from overwhelming implicit biblical extensions.

You’ve just given us the very definition of Sacred Tradition and provided several examples of it, yet you continue to deny it’s importance.

ChadS

 

[GeneGee]

Protestants are quite fond of bringing up any scripture that mentions tradition and then proceed to beat up Catholics with it since they presume they are based solely on the Word of God (the Bible) and not tradition. However, the major rallying cry of the Reformation was “SOLA SCRIPTURA”. If a Protestant will not accept this as a Protestant tradition they are self-deceived – at best.

But Jesus Himself gave us A standard (which IMO is not the only standard by any means - but a good one for this conversation) by which to judge tradition. Tradition CANNOT void the Word of God. For the sake of helping the Protestant let’s limit our focus on the Word of God to the Bible. Tradition cannot make void the Bible. Does SOLA SCRIPTURA pass that test? NO, in fact, it fails miserably. Why? because with all the various “interpretations” of scripture that this Protestant Template has devised it has effectively emasculated the Bible and effectively made it VOID and of NONE EFFECT. Thereby SOLA SCRIPTURA fails Jesus’ test because no honest soul seeking truth can find security in what other honest sincere souls say the Bible means. SOLA SCRIPTURA makes the Bible ineffective and useless.

For the sake of the Protestant tradition of SOLA SCRIPTURA, you have made void the word of God.

MonFrere