Christ taught Sola Scriptura using Moses' seat

[LetsObeyChrist]

RobedWithLight:

Hi LetsObeyChrist

Since you are saying that Sola Scriptura was taught by Jesus and the apostles, Paul actually quoted an extra Biblical rabbinic **tradition **

when he categorically named the two magicians who opposed Moses before the Pharaoh. Lets quote Paul himself:

**2 Timothy 3:8

**Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth–men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

Question: Did Paul violate Sola Scriptura ? Jannes and Jambres doesn’t appear in any Old Testament book !

Another example of a non-biblical tradition being quoted by a disciple, Jude is the following:

**Jude 8-9

In the same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

**Question: Did Jude violate Sola Scriptura here ? The battle between Michael and the devil over Moses’ body was not recorded in any Old Testament book !

GerryYou misunderstand sola scriptura , ONLY SCRIPTURE authoritative. Once these opposers to Moses, Jannes and Jambres are cited in Scripture it then becomes inerrant truth.

Same with Jude, until this information was in the Bible its existence elsewhere had no authority.

It isn’t hard for sola scripturaists to accept God revealed things to the apostles they otherwise would not have known by strict Old Testament study:

1 Corinthians 4:1 KJV 1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

What we reject is that others after the apostles have the same degree of authority in the Church:

1 Corinthians 12:28 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

2 Thessalonians 2:15: “And hold fast to the TRADITIONS I have taught you, either by mouth or by letter”.

Does this mean anything to you?

First of all, he’s referring to TRADITIONS, not scripture TRADITIONS.
Second, he’s implying that he didn’t teach ALL of Christ’s TRADITIONS by LETTER, but also, by WORD OF MOUTH. I hope you don’t mean to tell me that you believe that word of mouth is writing something down on paper. It’s pretty obvious that sola scriptura is a bad biproduct of true Christianity. Sola scriptura is where we got tens of thousands of protestant denominatios all with HUNDREDS of thousands of interpretations of the Bible within them all, and there’s a growth rate at probably an all-time-high of ONE EVERY FIVE DAYS! That’s what Christ wanted his church to be? Don’t make me laugh.

The passage you cite proves oral tradition existed before the NT was finalized. It does not prove that tradition exists today apart from Scripture.

To prove it exist, cite it now. If oral tradition exists, you and other Catholics heard it. Recite the text of it now, thanks.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

The passage you cite proves oral tradition existed before the NT was finalized. It does not prove that tradition exists today apart from Scripture.

To prove it exist, cite it now. If oral tradition exists, you and other Catholics heard it. Recite the text of it now, thanks.

No need to recite it. It has been written down, though not in Holy Scripture.

May I suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a good source to find its content?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Michael_Howard]

I will make this quick and to the point. I will use “circumcision” as my example. God taught his people under the Old Covenant that it was law to circumcise on the eighth day and failure to do so was punishable by death. In the New Covenant Christ sends *St. Paul to show the Scribes and Pharisees that it is no longer binding and that those who follow this law and teach others to do bring shame to the work of Christ. *

My point is this: God raised up men like you and I to show the Scribes and Pharisees that these things were no longer “binding” on the people of God but the scribes and phariseees said we have Abraham our Father referring to the Old Covenant law and tradition. They could not forsee a change in these things and denied Christ.

Baptitsm or immersion by water now replaces circumcision of old. God, because he is the author of scripture always has the ability to change the laws and requirements of the past, but he almost always uses human agents to do his will. Moses was the mouthpiece of God under the Old Covenant. When the Isrealites listened to Moses they were hearing God’s word and His will for them. The same with Peter, Paul or any of the apostles. Whether written or spoken, it was still Gods word.

As we have seen in the fruits of the Reformation over the centuries without an authoritive voice gaurding the sacred word of God handed down to us confusion reigns. Scripture is sacred, but the instrument he chooses to safegaurd the sacred word either written or orally is just as sacred. Why does it always have to be ‘one or the other’, why not both or none!

God gave his word to His apostles to be handed on protected, the Gnostic ‘secret’ knowledge left men to follow their conscience and feelins as to what was the real word of truth taught by the apostles and it is no different today.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Gerry Hunter:

No need to recite it. It has been written down, though not in Holy Scripture.

May I suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a good source to find its content?

Blessings,

Gerry

You are offering a substitute for genuine oral tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings? –Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium

As no Protestant ever denied the existence of the Catechism that is NOT being referred to as teaching “from the very lips of Jesus.”

When Catholic apologists cite 2 Th 2:15 in support of the existence of oral tradition apart from Scripture they thereby define where this tradition cannot be.

It cannot be in “the Catechism, the Didache, in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, in the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, of Eusebius, of Gregory the Great, of Basil the Great, of Augustine of Hippo, of Thomas Aquinas, of Robert Bellarmine and the Catechism of Trent, of the Council of Nicaea, of Chalcedon, Ephesus, Constantinople, the Lateran, Florence, the First and Second Vatican Councils, Boniface VIII, Leo XIII, Pius XII, John Paul II, in the monastic life, in the religious life, in how one generation passes on the Faith to the next, and most especially in all the different Rites of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

Those things didn’t exist when Paul said:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And it is that precise oral tradition that Catholics believe they have that I require to hear.

What good is oral tradition if one cannot hear it?

Frankly I have never met a Catholic or has ever heard real apostolic oral tradition from their very lips.

Rather it appears they were convinced such tradition must exist and then, upon becoming Catholic, they are given substitutes for it and they never get to hear genuine (from the very lips of Christ and His apostles) oral tradition.

I’m not a Catholic, I won’t be satisfied with inferior substitutes. I want what is advertised, period.

 

[SteveG]

A few questions.

LetsObeyChrist:

You misunderstand sola scriptura , ONLY SCRIPTURE authoritative. Once these opposers to Moses, Jannes and Jambres are cited in Scripture it then becomes inerrant truth.

For the moment, let’s pretend we grant you this point. How do you know what Scripture is? Which books should be included in the definition of scripture? Where is your infallable index which tells you that the books that are included in the bible you hold in your hands are the correct ones?

LetsObeyChrist:

The passage you cite proves oral tradition existed before the NT was finalized. It does not prove that tradition exists today apart from Scripture.

To prove it exist, cite it now. If oral tradition exists, you and other Catholics heard it. Recite the text of it now, thanks.

This question makes no sense. What are you looking for? We can give you oral traditions that exist, but you will reject them because they aren’t in scripture. The question is unanswerable because by definition you will a priori reject whatever we say which you can’t find in Scripture. Could you clarify what you are asking us to provide here?

LetsObeyChrist:

It isn’t hard for sola scripturaists to accept God revealed things to the apostles they otherwise would not have known by strict Old Testament study:
What we reject is that others after the apostles have the same degree of authority in the Church

I think we are all aware that this is your position. The question is, why? The concept of apostolic sucession is well testified in scripture itself. Why is this so hard for you to imagine?

The authoritative office of the apostles is testified to be transferable to non-apostles from the get go. Look at the situation with Judas. He is one of the twelve chosen. What happens after his death. Well, almost the first thing that happens after Jesus ascension is the filling of his bishropic/office (We are talking Acts chapter 1 here)…

** Acts 1:

• 15: In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
  16: "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
  17: For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
  18: (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
  19: And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
  20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’*** …By someone who was NOT one of the original twelve. Succession continues to be attested to troughout the NT. So why is it that you think the authority ends with the apostles?

 

[Michael_Howard]

*Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”**43 **

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "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."44 ***

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

Frankly I have never met a Catholic or has ever heard real apostolic oral tradition from their very lips.

Rather it appears they were convinced such tradition must exist and then, upon becoming Catholic, they are given substitutes for it and they never get to hear genuine (from the very lips of Christ and His apostles) oral tradition.

I’m not a Catholic, I won’t be satisfied with inferior substitutes. I want what is advertised, period.

Well, it would be very difficult to hear directly from the lips of Our Ascended Lord, or His Apostles who are with Him in heaven.

Indeed, he must have known we would have nothing beyond about 70 years in ANY subject if we insisted on the very lips of the utterer. :nope:

I suspect the Lord figured that out when He gave His Church Apostolic Succession through the Bishops. :clapping:

Nor would the Lord give His Church anything in the way of “inferior substitutes,” and we are therefore most grateful to Him for establishing this institution to teach and guard the deposit of the faith. :yup:

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

You are offering a substitute for genuine oral tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings? –Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium
…
It cannot be in "the Catechism, the Didache, in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, in the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, of Eusebius, of Gregory the Great, of Basil the Great, of Augustine of Hippo, of Thomas Aquinas,…

The problem here is that you have placed a definition here on tradition which does not fall within Catholic understanding. You have limited Tradtion to ORAL tradition. This is NOT Catholic understanding. With all due respect to the one statement (out of context) from the Catholic Encyclopedia, let me quote the definition of Tradition from the Catechism for you…

** . . . two distinct modes of transmission*** 81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "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."44 *

…You’ll see there are no restrictions here that state Tradition can only be Oral. That is a restriction you have laid on us incorrectly. Tradition in this sense would only mean those things held by the Church specifically not referred to in sacred Scripture. Under this corrected understanding, indeed, the list you provide above certainly is admissable as elements that contain some of that Tradition which indeed may ORIGINALLY have been oral. In fact as time progressed, it would be expected that these things would be written down, explained, expounded upon in the works of the Church.

LetsObeyChrist:

Those things didn't exist when Paul said:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

But again, that they were originally oral doesn’t mean they might not have been written down later. Paul made no prohibition that what was passed by word of mouth, must only be passed that way forever more.

Tradition refers more broadly to those things not explicit in Holy scripture and need not ALWAYS and FOREVER be oral. You should divorce yourself of the notion that Oral Tradition = Tradition in our understanding if you hope to have a meaningful discussion on this.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

SteveG:

The problem here is that you have placed a definition here on tradition which does not fall within Catholic understanding. You have limited Tradtion to ORAL tradition. This is NOT Catholic understanding. With all due respect to the one statement (out of context) from the Catholic Encyclopedia, let me quote the definition of Tradition from the Catechism for you…

Fundamental to your definition of apostolic oral tradition is the idea teaching from the very lips of Christ and His apostles exists within it.

That is the foundation of what Catholics call “apostolic oral tradition.”

That is proved in this post:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=137084#post137084

I only need to prove the foundation is missing for the entire edifice to collapse.

The question which is better:" Bible alone or Bible + apostolic oral tradition," is moot as all genuine apostolic oral tradition can be found only in the Bible.

How else can you explain the fact you have never heard genuine sayings from the lips of Christ and His apostles, not found in our Bibles today, at Mass?

 

[mrS4ntA]

but Sacred Tradition also includes those teachings of the Apostles as inspired by the Holy Spirit! The Mass **itself ** is one of them, the major one , in fact!

 

[ccav]

HiLetsObeyChrist,

From what I can see, your arguement falls short because the seat of Moses is nowhere mentioned in Scripture before that quote from Christ. It IS however a tradition that the Jews of Jesus day knew. So Jesus IS quoting a tradition and upholding it. That is not much of a sola scriptura arguement.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

The passage you cite proves oral tradition existed before the NT was finalized. It does not prove that tradition exists today apart from Scripture.

So basically what you’re saying is:

God, through the Holy Spirit, used Godly men to write down the scriptures, copy the scriptures, translate the scriptures, preserve the scriptures, and make sure that you could hold in your hands the scriptures which you claim are authoritative. They were preserved in this manner. They were preserved 100% from error.

However, for some reason, the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture was passed from the Apostles to the first generation of followers and then lost, for it doesn’t exist anymore “apart from scripture”

Alright. That’s an interesting bill of goods you’re trying to sell

We Catholics don’t buy that inconsistency.

 

[mark_a]

RobedWithLight:

Hi LetsObeyChrist

Since you are saying that Sola Scriptura was taught by Jesus and the apostles, Paul actually quoted an extra Biblical rabbinic **tradition **when he categorically named the two magicians who opposed Moses before the Pharaoh. Lets quote Paul himself:

**2 Timothy 3:8 **

Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth–men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

Question: Did Paul violate Sola Scriptura ? Jannes and Jambres doesn’t appear in any Old Testament book !

Another example of a non-biblical tradition being quoted by a disciple, Jude is the following:

Jude 8-9

In the same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Question: Did Jude violate Sola Scriptura here ? The battle between Michael and the devil over Moses’ body was not recorded in any Old Testament book !

Gerry

Great stuff!!! Got more?

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

Fundamental to your definition of apostolic oral tradition is the idea teaching from the very lips of Christ and His apostles exists within it.

That is the foundation of what Catholics call “apostolic oral tradition.”
……
I only need to prove the foundation is missing for the entire edifice to collapse.

The question which is better:" Bible alone or Bible + apostolic oral tradition," is moot as all genuine apostolic oral tradition can be found only in the Bible.

How else can you explain the fact you have never heard genuine sayings from the lips of Christ and His apostles, not found in our Bibles today, at Mass?

You are misfiring on so many things here that I am struggling where to even begin. I’ll try to make some sense out of this issue for you.

Initially EVERYTHING Christ taught was by definition oral as he left us no writings. Likewise, At least in the case of the apostles who didn’t write at all, INITIALLY everything they taught was oral as well. With regard to your continued insistence that the Catholic Church uses ORAL apostolic tradition, this is the extent to which the ORAL part of what we rightly call APOSTOLIC Tradition (again sans oral) is binding. Even your citation of the article in the Catholic encyclopedia supports this understanding. Read it carefully again…

• Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?*

…All it’s saying is that the teachings would have been INITIALLY oral from the lips of Jesus, but not written in scripture. You somehow take this to mean that it must be ever after orally transmitted and never written down.

Some (most/much?) of what was taught by Christ and the apostles orally WAS written down in what we now consider canonized scripture. By definition, that portion of the Lord’s teaching ceased to be ‘strictly’ oral and became written.

The question you should really be asking is why those things not written down weren’t at some point written and included in the Canon. Well, all of them were eventually written down or written about (the perpetual virginity of Mary is probably the best example), but not included in ‘scripture’. Why?

The reason is because the canon of scripture was determined over a period of time, and writings had to pass several basic tests to even be considered for the canon. The key criteria were that the writings had to be …

  a.  Of Apostolic origin.  This means they had to be written by an apostle, or a direct disciple of an apostle.
  b.  Early date.  Generally believed to be written within the first generation or two after the resurrection.
  c.  In keeping with Orthodox Christian teaching.

…So for example Origen in 248 uses Saint Irenaeus (a hearer of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John) teachings from a mere 50 years earlier to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary, and claims that it is a teaching handed on by the apostles, this is now a written Apostolic tradition, but…both Origen and Irenaeus fail the canon test on points a and b. Neither is a direct hearer of an apostle, nor did they write early enough to be included. But, the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is held by the universal Church from the earliest times and has never changed, and only finally attested in writing at a later date. THERE is an example of apostolic tradition you are looking for, but it’s not oral any longer, and it need not be to prove the validity of Apostolic Tradition.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

A few more notes on the canon issue.

1.It’s ridiculous for you to say, ‘Hey, let’s hear these traditions and have them put in the canon if you can prove them.’ First, canon has been closed (and should be) for quite some time. We don’t willy nilly open and close the bible canon and toss books, and writings in it any time we like. I think we both agree that would be unwise. Second, these things are ‘canonized’ in their on way. That the Church has always, and continues to teach them is their ‘canonization’. This is exactly what we mean by Scripture AND Tradition. There are in essence two canons for us, thus we need not force fit Origens’ writings into one (scripture) since it’s already protected under the other (Tradition).

1. It’s also important to note that even all three criteria stated in my previous post relied on tradition (and like it or not your bible relies on it as well). With regard to both authorship and dating of writings, the earliest manuscripts give us no conclusive date or name for most books of the bible. It is Tradition, which holds that Matthew authored the gospel under his name, and allows his gospel to pass the first two tests and be included. It is that same tradition that states the gospel of Thomas was not written by an apostle and was written too late for inclusion. Likewise with almost all the books in the NT. Even protestant biblical scholars acknowledge this much.
2. Further, criteria c. rests solely upon the books themselves being within the bounds of the Traditional orthodox teachings held, not vice versa. It was the books in question that had to answer to the councils for inclusion, not the councils answering to the books.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

There’s been something about this thread that has been itching me from the time I read its title, “Christ taught Sola Scriptura using Moses’ [sic] seat.” (I don’t mean the mispunctuated possessive. )

In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees teaching from Moses’s seat. But this phrase, or idea, cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. (SteveG had noted that) But it IS found in the Mishna, which is a Jewish teaching tradition, which was oral at first, but subsequently set down in writing.

The assertion of the title is therefore self-contradictory (hence, I guess, the itch), not just plain wrong. It has Jesus using the authority from tradition to proclaim that there is no authority but scripture. No wonder he never did it!

Mind you, he did approve of the tradition of the Mishna, and noted that it had authority, as elsewhere he acknowledged the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures which existed along with the Mishna. It is, in that respect, a prefiguring of the Apostolic Tradition guarded and transmitted by the Church, existing along with the canon of Holy Scripture.

I’m grateful for the excellent post by SteveG that really got the itch tingling, and got me to track it down to the Mishna.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Racer X:

Sheesh! The whole point of the “Moses’ seat” passage is that Christ is commanding the people to **respect the divinely-established authority of the Pharisees *which has been passed down from generation to generation.***Just like the authority of the bishops has been passed down. And this in spite of obviously poor example of the hypocrital Pharisees! They still held authority even though they didn’t live up to it.

Sola scriptura?!?! Talk about twisting a passage to fit your prejudices.

Can a layman become pope?

The post noted the Pharisees were laymen who had no right to sit in Moses’ Seat.

They usurped authority and context shows them to have been hypocrites also.

Christ’s point is clear, no matter how sinful men are through whom the Word of God comes, rebellion against that word is without excuse.

The authority of God is undiminished by the evil of men.

An analogy, oil and water, they don’t mix. Just as water does not increase the oil neither can water diminish it. They don’t mix.

God’s authority is not enhanced or diminished by human authority.

The entire teaches we must obey God rather than men:

**Matthew 23:3 **3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

All things they teach while sitting=all they fetch from God’s Word, that observe and do.

Don’t do according to their rebellion against that word, don’t be like them and teach God’s word only to rebel against it.

**Acts 5:29 **29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God rather than men. -Douay Rheims

That is what sola (only) scriptura (scripture) means, only scripture is supreme authority being the Word of God.

 

[Sir_Knight]

LetsObeyChrist:

… only scripture is supreme authority being the Word of God.

How do you know that scripture is the Word of God? God didn’t come down and hand the NT to the people the way that the Ten Commandments were handed to Moses. Instead, the NT was assembled by the church (as guided by the Holy Spirit). If you accept the authority of scripture as being the Word of God, then you have to accept the authority of the Church which assembled it guided by the Holy Spirit. And just as the Holy Spirit guided the church in assembling the Bible, it also guides the church in all other areas because we have Christ’s promise that He will send His Holy Spirit who will guide the church in all things.

If you refuse to accept the authority of the church, then the bible that they assembled also lacks authority. To believe otherwise is illogical. It would be like using a reference book on a particular subject as your guide but calling the author a quack. If the author is a quack, then so is the book that he wrote. If the book has merit to it, then so does the person who wrote it.

To believe otherwise just doesn’t make any logical sense.

 

[BobCatholic]

So where is this Moses’ seat today?

We Catholics know that answer. LOC may not.