Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[runandsew]

How about a quote from the Lord?Mark 7:9-13

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

10 “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;

11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’

12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;

13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”While I don’t believe that all tradition is to be condemned, certainly, according to Jesus, all tradition that sets itself against scripture must be exposed for what it is, fought against, set aside, and ignored.

In general, the appeal of the early Fathers in regard to tradition was to the teaching of Scripture as the tradition. The question then becomes, “were they (and the subsequent church leadership) correct in their interpretations of scripture, and their definitions of tradition?”

So what I hear you saying is that any tradition that invalidates your understanding of scripture should be rejected?
And if a tradition which you accept but someone else rejects because of their understanding of scripture should be rejected by that person.

 

[sandusky]

elvisman:

These passages show that not all is to be written down.

Nah, they don’t say that at all.

In fact, what you’re positing is that the written testimony and revelation differs from what was taught orally.” But you can’t prove that.

Except for the use of a different scripture, this was Bellarmine’s argument also. He appealed to Jn 16:12, from which he concluded that there are many unwritten traditions, because the Lord said many things which are not written.

William Whitaker (1547-1595), in his book, Disputations on Holy Scripture, presents a four-part reply to Bellarmine’s position, in which, in his fourth point, Whitaker notes that the “heretics” against whom Augustine argued, appealed to the same scripture to prove their points, points which Whitaker refers to as, "figments" of their imaginations.

He concludes his argument against this point of Bellarmine with this truth:”However, the papists must make good two things in order to prove that this place [Jn 16:12], lends them any help: first, that those things which Christ then reserved are now also still unwritten; the other, that they are the same they boast of, and place amongst their traditions. But these things they will never be able to prove.

(William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, Soli Deo Gloria Publications, Orlando, FL, 2005, pp. 542-545.)

(Bolding in the text mine).That work was first published in 1588, and the truth of Whitaker’s “prophecy” is still true 420 years later, and will continue to be true 420 hence; namely, you cannot prove that contained within those unwritten things, are any of the “traditions” your church holds today.

elvisman:

The ECF’s understood this and that is why they DIDN’T adhere to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura was an invention - a “tradition of men” that sprouted up some 1500 years after the Church was established by Jesus.

C’mon, you’re denying your church’s position that all of its tradition has, as it basis, the written scripture.

With respect to the verses you offer, specifically, 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:5; 3:6 (the others don’t really bear on this), they apply to the written word.

In fact, in the 2 Thess 2 passage, Paul says to them, ***don’t you remember me telling you this when I was last with you ***(v5)? And what he had told them at that time is spelled out from v1.

And, in 3:6, the command is not to associate with those who refuse to walk according to scripturally defined “Christian walk.”

 

[sandusky]

runandsew:

So what I hear you saying is that any tradition that invalidates your understanding of scripture should be rejected?

And if a tradition which you accept but someone else rejects because of their understanding of scripture should be rejected by that person.

Of course you do.

 

[AshleyBelle]

C’mon, you’re denying your church’s position that all of its tradition has, as it basis, the written scripture.

Scripture is not the “basis” for tradition at all… You are still misunderstanding. Scripture will SUPPORT tradition… and some tradition may come directly from the Bible, but tradition is not a simple derivative of the Bible. Both are unique, and both are required to understand the fullness of the truth that Christ revealed. Scripture and tradition together are the Word…and the Magisterium consists of the teachers Christ gave us, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, to teach the Word.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The following thread covers Scripture and Tradition:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=247998

It’s not too long, but it’s not too short!

 

[catholic1seeks]

#1 Check out the article ***Scripture and Tradition ***
at Evangelical Catholic Apologetics (bringyou.to/apologetics/)

Article: bringyou.to/apologetics/num1.htm

The article shows how the Church Fathers appealed both to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together as the Rule of Faith for Christian doctrine.

#2 Also see the article Sola Scriptura in the early Church*
at Corunum Catholic Apologetics

Article: cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

***A list of different Apologetics resources on Scripture and Tradition: archive.salvationhistory.com/library/apologetics/theBible.cfm ***

 

[sandusky]

Scripture is not the “basis” for tradition at all… You are still misunderstanding. Scripture will SUPPORT tradition… and some tradition may come directly from the Bible, but tradition is not a simple derivative of the Bible. Both are unique, and both are required to understand the fullness of the truth that Christ revealed. Scripture and tradition together are the Word…and the Magisterium consists of the teachers Christ gave us, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, to teach the Word.

What you say sounds ambiguous, and contradictory.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Did Jesus somehow set up a chasm between tradition and God’s word when he berated the Pharisees for adhering to the traditions of the elders in opposition to God’s word? In the very same Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it (Mt 23: 2-3a, nrsv)

But nowhere in the OT will we find any reference to the scribes or Pharisees inheriting the teaching authority of Moses. Jesus apparently accepts as true an extra-scriptural Jewish tradition that recognizes that the scribes and Pharisees (rather than the Saducees, perhaps) preserve the teachings of the Torah, and that even his hearers should continue to listen to them, until the age of his Church has come. Thus for Jesus, God’s plan can also be transmitted in tradition, which need not be written down in Scripture ever. Jesus accepts all the traditions that his Father has inspired in the people of the Jewish covenant, and rejects only those that pretended to be divine traditions when they were in fact human in origin.

Even St Paul accepts extra-scriptural traditions:

And all [our ancestors] ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:3-4 nrsv)

The spiritual food refers to the manna, and the spiritual drink refers to water that flowed from the rock. It was in Jewish tradition that the rock followed the Jews along their sojourn in the desert. (Some may have heard of Protestant eisigesis that tries to interpret the “rock that followed them” as God, rather than a physical rock, but most reasonable people should be able to see the fatal flaw of such a reading.) Clearly, St Paul did not believe that only Scripture transmits God’s truths; God’s revelation can also be transmitted by traditions apart from Scripture.

sandusky would have us believe that the Catholic Church thinks that Scripture came first and then Tradition. As pointed out by AshleyBelle, this is not what the Church professes. Tradition existed before, during and after Scripture was written. Scripture is itself a written expression (albeit under inspiration) of Tradition, Scripture was discerned and canonised through Tradition, and Scripture continues to require Tradition to be interpreted rightly. Tradition cannot contradict Scripture, but Scripture also cannot contradict Tradition. When the early Church was deciding which books claiming to be scripture really were inspired, “scriptures” that contradicted her Tradition were eliminated.

As for the suggestion that the Church Fathers accepted the insane idea of sola scriptura, it suffices to point out 2 things:

(1) There was NO commonly agreed upon canon of Scripture while the Church Fathers lived.

Different local churches had different lists of canonical books depending on their Bishop right to the 4th-5th centuries. Yet the Church Fathers recognized they were in full communion with one another, that they had the same faith, and understood that the heresies were contrary to the truth revealed by Jesus and delivered by the Apostles. This is because they recognized they all had the same Word of God transmitted in Tradition. And because these heresies were contrary to the Apostolic Tradition they themselves had received and were bound to hand on, they could then go on to offer evidence from Scripture (if it could be of use) to confound the heretics. Tradition, for the Church Fathers, were not merely an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, but the key through which the Scripture can be unlocked, the rock on which any exegesis must build on, and the lens through which Scripture must be read through to be correct.

(2) The Fathers knew that Tradition is not an unwritten list of teachings (which could always be written down eventually), but the living faith of the Church: the very culture, life and faith of the Church. As Pope Benedict XVI taught: Tradition ultimately transmits the person of Jesus so that people of all times and places can encounter the person of Jesus: his teachings, his truth and his presence.

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved. (St Irenaeus, Against Heresies)

Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scriptural proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the same force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law. (St Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians)

Hence it is manifest [from 2 Thess 2:15], that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things were also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (St John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians)

Hence the Catholic understanding that both Scripture and Tradition form the single deposit of the Word of God, and both are equally important.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Finally, sandusky supports Whitaker who concluded that Catholics can never prove that our Traditions are the very unwritten traditions that St Paul mentioned in 2 Thessalonians, or the truths that the Advocate will reveal to the Church. I’m sure more brilliant minds than mine have offered countless counterarguments to Whitaker’s point. If sandusky were to ponder on this brilliant point made by Whitaker with a little more care, s(he) would also realise that the logical conclusion to Whitaker’s argument would rephrase itself as this:

Christians will never be able to prove that the sayings and works of Jesus are accurately portrayed in any of the canonical gospels.

Hence, popular interest in newly discovered gnostic texts such as the gospel of Judas etc. Ultimately, as a Catholic, the reason why I accept the Scriptures is because the Catholic Church professes them, and I believe everything that the Catholic Church professes because her Tradition continues to powerfully transmit the fullness of that memory of the teachings and works of Jesus that the Apostles received and handed on.

 

[eva6206213]

Thank you for the sharing!

 

[sandusky]

peregrinus_sg:

In the very same Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said:

I don’t believe the Gospel of Matthew has been quoted on this thread, either by myself, or anyone else.

peregrinus_sg:

But nowhere in the OT will we find any reference to the scribes or Pharisees inheriting the teaching authority of Moses. Jesus apparently accepts as true an extra-scriptural Jewish tradition that recognizes that the scribes and Pharisees (rather than the Saducees, perhaps) preserve the teachings of the Torah, and that even his hearers should continue to listen to them, until the age of his Church has come.

Thus for Jesus, God’s plan can also be transmitted in tradition, which need not be written down in Scripture ever. Jesus accepts all the traditions that his Father has inspired in the people of the Jewish covenant, and rejects only those that pretended to be divine traditions when they were in fact human in origin.

That’s a big jump to a big conclusion. In fact, your conclusion is implied in your premise, and is, therefore, circular.

Furthermore, it begs the question: where does Jesus refer to the authority of the High Priest, the Pharisees, and the Scribes as “tradition?” Answer: He doesn’t.

peregrinus_sg:

The spiritual food refers to the manna, and the spiritual drink refers to water that flowed from the rock. It was in Jewish tradition that the rock followed the Jews along their sojourn in the desert. (Some may have heard of Protestant eisigesis that tries to interpret the “rock that followed them” as God, rather than a physical rock, but most reasonable people should be able to see the fatal flaw of such a reading.)

And what would that “fatal flaw” be?

The text clearly says: ” ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός,” the rock was Christ.

peregrinus_sg:

sandusky would have us believe that the Catholic Church thinks that Scripture came first and then Tradition.

Catholics don’t think that.

peregrinus_sg:

As pointed out by AshleyBelle, this is not what the Church professes.

Correct.

peregrinus_sg:

Tradition existed before, during and after Scripture was written.

ISTM, you’re working back to the argument of Bellarmine.

peregrinus_sg:

Finally, sandusky supports Whitaker who concluded that Catholics can never prove that our Traditions are the very unwritten traditions that St Paul mentioned in 2 Thessalonians, or the truths that the Advocate will reveal to the Church.

Paul spoke of “tradition,” singular, not plural as you write above. And, all one need do is read from v1 of chapter 2 to find the “tradition” of which Paul was speaking.

You cannot prove that the “tradition” spoken of in the NT, is anything other than that which was written down.

peregrinus_sg:

I’m sure more brilliant minds than mine have offered countless counterarguments to Whitaker’s point. If sandusky were to ponder on this brilliant point made by Whitaker with a little more care, s(he) would also realise that the logical conclusion to Whitaker’s argument would rephrase itself as this:

Christians will never be able to prove that the sayings and works of Jesus are accurately portrayed in any of the canonical gospels.

You gotta’ love a Catholic who attacks God’s in word in the manner in which you do.

Your apologetic is quite devilish, IMO. Good job!

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I don’t believe the Gospel of Matthew has been quoted on this thread, either by myself, or anyone else.

My bad. But the account you quoted from St Mark’s gospel also occurs in St Matthew’s gospel, as I’m sure you realise.

where does Jesus refer to the authority of the High Priest, the Pharisees, and the Scribes as “tradition?” Answer: He doesn’t

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you implying that the Pharisees never knew they sit on Moses’ seat? That Jesus was telling his listerners something that they never knew? The context of the passage indicates very clearly that the Pharisees claimed such authority for themselves, and that Jesus, in this instance, did not disagree. Where would they base such a claim upon?

But I will help you to do your homework: Jesus was clearly relying on a Pharasaic tradition that claims such an authority:

The Jewish rabbis claimed to have received divine revelation and the authority to interpret it in an unbroken line from Moses (cf. Pirke Aboth [The Sayings of the Fathers] 1,1) translated by John Meier, New Testament Message: Matthew

The Pharisees claimed this, this is not written in the OT, but is part of Jewish tradition (written in the Mishnah), Jesus accepts it. Thus Jesus accepts that God’s plan can also be found in unwritten traditions apart from Scripture. How circular a reasoning was this?

And what would that “fatal flaw” be?

St Paul obviously believed that the “rock that followed” the Israelites around the desert was a prefigurement of Christ. But St Paul would make sense only if the Jews already accepted that there was a physical rock that actually travelled with the people. St Paul then shows that the rock was a symbol for Christ, just as the crossing of the Red Sea (another historical event) was a symbol for baptism. Perhaps I’m misreading you, but clearly, the Jews didn’t share St Paul’s convictions that the rock was Christ. They probably thought it was a marvellous miracle from God that the rock moved with them to provide water, a testament of God’s providence and care.

ISTM, you’re working back to the argument of Bellarmine.

Sorry, what’s “ISTM”? Not very familiar with these short forms.

Paul spoke of “tradition,” singular, not plural as you write above. And, all one need do is read from v1 of chapter 2 to find the “tradition” of which Paul was speaking.

You cannot prove that the “tradition” spoken of in the NT, is anything other than that which was written down.

I’m sorry, but you lost me completely at this point. In 2 Thessalonians, we read:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[footnote: traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. niv

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. nasb

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. nkjv

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. nrsv

So the English translation clearly speaks of traditions in the plural. Similarly in St Jerome’s Vulgata translation. Clearly, St Paul was envisioning something more than the one tradition that you seem to harp on. And since St Paul was speaking of traditions whether orally communicated or written, the content of these traditions must extend beyond what was mentioned and beaten to a dead horse in 2 Thess. To insist that all the traditions that St Paul intends to cover can also be found in 2 Thess is neither proper reasoning, nor circular reasoning, but a failure to use common sense to reason.

You gotta’ love a Catholic who attacks God’s in word in the manner in which you do.

Your apologetic is quite devilish, IMO. Good job!

Oh dear, you didn’t seem to understand gentle irony. If you read carefully, you would realize that I accept fully Scripture as the written Word of God on the authority of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

In any case, it was you who agreed with Whitaker’s proposition and demanded that Catholics somehow prove that the Tradition we have is what St Paul mentioned. I don’t agree with Whitaker’s proposition and have my preliminary answer to him, but I would like to have that matured before I embarass myself publicly on that. I merely pointed out that anyone who accepts Whitaker’s argument must, if he is intellectually honest, also grapple with the question of how he can prove that the canonical Scriptures are really true. So either you really don’t agree with Whitaker, thus disproving the validity of his argument, or you really don’t believe in the Scriptures. Of course, it is possible that you have not thought fully about what you support, or you are lying to yourself.

 

[jimmy]

This might offend every protestant on this board but scripture is not revelation. The last public revelation of God was Jesus Christ, not the New Testament. You presume to add to Christ by saying that the New Testament is revelation. There were three forms of revelation of God. God first revealed Himself through creation. In creation we can see signs of God. Second, in the names which God revealed of Himself. I AM WHO I AM is a revelation of God. And lastly God revealed Himself in Christ. God became man that we might become gods. It is the perfection of revelation. There can be nothing more beyond this.

Scripture is a vehicle of revelation. In it we see the words and actions of Christ. It is inerrant but it is not the only vehicle of revelation. The Church is the ultimate vehicle through which we gain knowledge of Christ. Without the Church and its tradition you can know nothing of Christ. What the tradition is is essentially the millieu in which the scripture is interpreted. The scripture is ultimately meant to be read in the liturgy. That was the specific reason for defining a canon. The books of the canon were those books which were to be read in the liturgy.

Christianity is not a religion of the book. If that were the case Christ would have written the scriptures Himself and we would have had a canon of the scriptures long before the council of Laudicea in the 360’s. We are the people of God who are called as a whole - not simply as individuals - to salvation. There can be no salvation apart from the Church because it is the Church which Christ died for. Since Christ’s call is a universal call to salvation our salvation is through the universal Catholic Church.

 

[sandusky]

peregrinus_sg:

Are you implying that the Pharisees never knew they sit on Moses’ seat? That Jesus was telling his listerners something that they never knew?

No.

peregrinus_sg:

The context of the passage indicates very clearly that the Pharisees claimed such authority for themselves, and that Jesus, in this instance, did not disagree. Where would they base such a claim upon?

But I will help you to do your homework: Jesus was clearly relying on a Pharasaic tradition that claims such an authority:
The Pharisees claimed this, this is not written in the OT, but is part of Jewish tradition (written in the Mishnah), Jesus accepts it.

Yes Jesus accepts their authority.

peregrinus_sg:

Thus Jesus accepts that God’s plan can also be found in unwritten traditions apart from Scripture.

With respect to the authority of the Jews.

You’re back to Bellermine’s argument, and the argument of the “heretics” who Augustine attacked.

peregrinus_sg:

St Paul obviously believed that the “rock that followed” the Israelites around the desert was a prefigurement of Christ.

No, the language clearly says the rock ”was Christ.”

peregrinus_sg:

Sorry, what’s “ISTM”?

It seems to me.

peregrinus_sg:

So the English translation clearly speaks of traditions in the plural.

It’s singular in the Greek—a singular tradition.

peregrinus_sg:

Similarly in St Jerome’s Vulgata translation. Clearly, St Paul was envisioning something more than the one tradition that you seem to harp on. And since St Paul was speaking of traditions whether orally communicated or written, the content of these traditions must extend beyond what was mentioned and beaten to a dead horse in 2 Thess. To insist that all the traditions that St Paul intends to cover can also be found in 2 Thess is neither proper reasoning, nor circular reasoning, but a failure to use common sense to reason.

Again, in 2 Thess 3:6, it’s a singular tradition of which Paul speaks.

That “singular tradition” was delivered orally, and in 2 Thess 2:1-5, that singular tradition is committed to writing.

peregrinus_sg:

I merely pointed out that anyone who accepts Whitaker’s argument must, if he is intellectually honest, also grapple with the question of how he can prove that the canonical Scriptures are really true. So either you really don’t agree with Whitaker, thus disproving the validity of his argument, or you really don’t believe in the Scriptures. Of course, it is possible that you have not thought fully about what you support, or you are lying to yourself.

I agree both with Whitaker’s argument, and that the canon of Scripture is true.

 

[jimmy]

”However, the papists must make good two things in order to prove that this place [Jn 16:12], lends them any help: first, that those things which Christ then reserved are now also still unwritten; the other, that they are the same they boast of, and place amongst their traditions. But these things they will never be able to prove.

To prove this point it is enough to refer to Paul’s statement to hold to the tradition handed down whether by word of mouth or by epistle. The fact is that the apostles did not preach sola scriptura and neither did the early Christians. It is an aberation of the later Christian of the reformation.

 

[elvisman]

Nah, they don’t say that at all.

In fact, what you’re positing is that the written testimony and revelation differs from what was taught orally.” But you can’t prove that.

Except for the use of a different scripture, this was Bellarmine’s argument also. He appealed to Jn 16:12, from which he concluded that there are many unwritten traditions, because the Lord said many things which are not written.

William Whitaker (1547-1595), in his book, Disputations on Holy Scripture, presents a four-part reply to Bellarmine’s position, in which, in his fourth point, Whitaker notes that the “heretics” against whom Augustine argued, appealed to the same scripture to prove their points, points which Whitaker refers to as, "figments" of their imaginations.

He concludes his argument against this point of Bellarmine with this truth:”However, the papists must make good two things in order to prove that this place [Jn 16:12], lends them any help: first, that those things which Christ then reserved are now also still unwritten; the other, that they are the same they boast of, and place amongst their traditions. But these things they will never be able to prove.

(William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, Soli Deo Gloria Publications, Orlando, FL, 2005, pp. 542-545.)

(Bolding in the text mine).That work was first published in 1588, and the truth of Whitaker’s “prophecy” is still true 420 years later, and will continue to be true 420 hence; namely, you cannot prove that contained within those unwritten things, are any of the “traditions” your church holds today.

C’mon, you’re denying your church’s position that all of its tradition has, as it basis, the written scripture.

With respect to the verses you offer, specifically, 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:5; 3:6 (the others don’t really bear on this), they apply to the written word.

In fact, in the 2 Thess 2 passage, Paul says to them, ***don’t you remember me telling you this when I was last with you ***(v5)? And what he had told them at that time is spelled out from v1.

And, in 3:6, the command is not to associate with those who refuse to walk according to scripturally defined “Christian walk.”

**Hogwash. **
I’m not denying the Catholic Church’s position about our traditions having their basis on the written scripture.
I’m saying that not all tradition is explicitly stated in scripture. The entity that gets to make that call and any other call is the Church led by the Holy Spirit. This IS explicitly stated several times in Scripture.

Your words from Post #11:
"While I don’t believe that all tradition is to be condemned, certainly, according to Jesus, all tradition that sets itself against scripture must be exposed for what it is, fought against, set aside, and ignored."
**Sola Scriptura fits into this category as it is not only NOT explicitly taught in Sctipture - it’s not even implied. **

As a matter of fact, the only scripture passage that is ever offered by Protestants to defend this tradition of men is 2 Tim. 3:16:
***"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, *so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

---

Nowhere is this passage saying the it is sufficient - only profitable or useful.

 

[sandusky]

Hogwash.
I’m not denying the Catholic Church’s position about our traditions having their basis on the written scripture.
**I’m saying that not **all tradition is explicitly stated in scripture. The entity that gets to make that call and any other call is the Church led by the Holy Spirit. This IS explicitly stated several times in Scripture.

Where is it stated in scripture that the Church defines tradition?

Your words from Post #11:
"While I don’t believe that all tradition is to be condemned, certainly, according to Jesus, all tradition that sets itself against scripture must be exposed for what it is, fought against, set aside, and ignored."
**Sola Scriptura fits into this category as it is not only NOT **explicitly taught in Sctipture - it’s not even implied.

Scripture doesn’t set itself against itself.

 

[sandusky]

To prove this point it is enough to refer to Paul’s statement to hold to the tradition handed down whether by word of mouth or by epistle.

That doesn’t prove anything.

What’s being posited by Catholics is, tradition is something other than, or something in addition to what has been written. But they can’t prove it.

 

[onenow1]

That doesn’t prove anything.

What’s being posited by Catholics is, tradition is something other than, or something in addition to what has been written. But they can’t prove it.

Quote=onenow1 We can you just do not accept it. Matt. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Peace,onenow1opcorn:

 

[jimmy]

That doesn’t prove anything.

What’s being posited by Catholics is, tradition is something other than, or something in addition to what has been written. But they can’t prove it.

‘They can’t prove it’ is a meaningless arguement. I could fire back with the same argument. ‘Protestants argue that everything is written but they can’t prove it.’ The fact is that what Paul says implies(even proves) that some aspect of the faith isn’t written. To say otherwise is to ignore Paul’s words for your own tradition.

Your statement that the bible is the only rule of faith basically says that Christ left His Church as soon as the scriptures were written. The fact is that the faith is not encountered only by reading scripture. The faith is encountered by encountering Christ Himself, who has promised that He would be present to us until the end. He did not say read the scriptures to find me; He said He would be with His apostles till He came again. So it is both an encounter of the words of Christ in the scriptures and an encounter with Christ Himself. And it is through the Church that you experience this encounter. As Christ’s words to Paul and Paul’s words to the Corinthians show the Church is the body of Christ. It is through her tradition and worship that you will encounter the living God, Jesus Christ. Her worship includes the words of scripture but the words of scripture are not the whole of her worship. Through her worship you encounter Christ and you are made to be a part of the body of Christ. And it is in this worship where the Church’s tradition is found. The tradition is the worship of the Church and that is where the scripture is primarily meant to be experienced. It is where you encounter Christ to the greatest degree.