1.Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
2.Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?
How about, for (1):
- The addition of scriptures to the Tanakh
- The** writing** of a new Testament
- The inspiration by God of those writings
- The canonisation of the NT
- The canonisation of** those writings in particular**
These are different aspects of a single fact: that the followers of Jesus, without the slightest encouragement from Jesus or from the TaNaKh, & in absolute disregard of both, had the effrontery to add to the Bible.
By normal “anti-Catholic” logic, the five points outlined above are as flagrantly anti-Christian as any of the other “inventions” of Rome.
It is a measure of the need for a TRUE Reformation that these blasphemous & damnable books have not been thrown out of the Church. Jesus had no need of Romans or Galatians or John or Acts - so neither do TRUE Christians.
Satirical ranting apart, there is a real issue here. To work out a demonstration of the wickedness of the Papists in adding to the perfect word of God by composing their 27 extra books might be a very useful intellectual exercise; it would help to test the validity of the sorts of arguments and ideas people use, because, in fact, the status of these writings is one subject about which RCs & their severer Evangelical critics agree. In any case, it is not enough for “anti-Catholic” positions to define themselves by being “not Romish”. ISTM that the usual arguments against tradition need to be re-considered; to stop at repeating them, is to indulge in the deadening kind of traditionalism that fossilises the Gospel & drains it of power; this kind of traditionalism is not a Christian position at all.
There may well be good arguments to show that the five positions above are not the difficulties they seem for an estimate of the Bible that has it as the supreme judge in all controversies - but what are they ? What is always needed is “renewal of the mind” (cf. Rom.12.2), & this means we have to “live dangerously”: we have to let our positions, no matter how cherished or in which tradition they may be found, be open to change. The acorn is probably quite happy to be an acorn - yet it has no business not to fall into the ground and become an oak. If we don’t do this, we are in effect claiming that we have nothing to learn - that we are not mathetai, discipuli, disciples, learners. Which implies that the Church & its proclamation belongs not to the Lord of the Church, but, to us. Without change, there can be no Christian Tradition. Not for RCs - & not for Evangelicals, who are as reliant on tradition as any RC; it just happens not to have quite the same content as RC Tradition.
This does not mean that all traditions are,
because traditional, to be accepted as part of Tradition: but those who are critical of either or both, need to have the tools to discriminate between what is acceptable & what is not; which in turn calls for adequate methods of discrimination. And the method that rejects all Traditions or all Tradition or both out of hand, purely because they are “not in the Bible” (in some sense - but what is that sense ?) is not adequate.
FWIW, the study of the history of the development of the NT canon could be regarded as a form of what is stigmatised as “liberalism”: for, just like the interpretation of the books themselves, it is an historical investigation, & for that reason it is as liable as the historical criticism of the texts to come up with hitherto unsuspected solutions. Be that as it may, this is not something that Christians should have difficulty accepting; even if they do.
My copy of Luther’s Bible has the table of contents, and the dc books.
