Explaining Apostotlic Tradition via Sola Scriptura

[IHeartAquinas]

I have a couple friends who belong to a non-denominational sola scriptura congregation. They practice hermeneutics and make a big deal about utilizing scripture and historical context in gleaning their interpretations of scripture, but they reject Apostolic Tradition and do not rely on the Church Fathers, claiming that by the time they were writing, the Church had become corrupted. As a response, I referenced the Didache which reads like a primer for Catholicism and was written earlier than most Church Fathers who referenced it time and again, but they refuted it because it is not scripture.

I have come to a point where they can intellectually understand why the Catholic Church believes what we do. I have explained almost everything there is to explain about Catholicism and I think I’m to the point where my knowledge of the Church is so great that seminary is in order so I can work on getting my Pope hat on, but it all comes down to Apostolic Tradition and the Church Fathers. Because it is “not” in scripture (I thought I explained Apostolic Succession pretty much from a solely scriptural standpoint fairly well) they say that every argument is flawed because I’ve referenced the Church Fathers and Tradition.

Can anyone give me some solid scriptural evidence that supports Tradition and the Fathers? I’ve asked them and this really is the only thing they object to in my arguments. They say my arguments are logical, reasonable, and sound, except they see the appeals to the Church Fathers as discrediting each and every one of them, even when I have pages of scriptural quotes and a single passing reference to Augustine or Origen. Then they deny my simple refute of their theory of “corruption” (ie, how do you know that you are holding true to the original interpretations of scripture if you have nothing to cross-reference? aka–the Fathers?).

It would really help me out if the CAF community could give me some help in pulling together material.

 

[Apollos]

They practice hermeneutics and make a big deal about utilizing scripture and historical context in gleaning their interpretations of scripture, but they reject Apostolic Tradition and do not rely on the Church Fathers, claiming that by the time they were writing, the Church had become corrupted.

How clever. And after they’re done hammering out their hermeneutic, do they actually think their work has enough enduring value that it should become part of the historic consensus? Or do they think the next generation should disregard it and construct truths of their own?

Honestly I just don’t see how these people can claim, without a hint of irony, that the Church became corrupted, and then blissfully presume themselves to be immune.

Tell me, is “historical context” in scripture? Please.

Can anyone give me some solid scriptural evidence that supports Tradition and the Fathers?

Matthew 28:18-20. If any of these people heard the apostles preach, they would have discredited the entire New Testament save the gospels, because not one NT book references the teachings of Jesus - oh, and the one quotation supposedly from Jesus isn’t even in the gospels.

 

[InspiritCarol]

This world-view completely slanders Jesus.

If Jesus chose completely incompetent followers, then what was the point?

If the early fathers were corrupt, then what does that make the bible which was brought to us by … the early fathers?

Nowhere, in **any **way shape or form, does Jesus say “Is anybody writing this down?”.

If the infinite God of all the universe wanted to be contained and defined completely and solely by a single book, don’t you think He would have been more clear about its creation?

Look to the Deuterocanonicals for evidence that the protestant bible is a sad massacre of sacred scripture. If Sirach 15 alone had not been removed, think of how many poor misguided souls might have been saved from meaningless pain and death.

This has some good info:
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Most important for your sanity, though: there are many proverbs regarding fools. Keep them in mind.

May God be with you.

 

[Apollos]

If the infinite God of all the universe wanted to be contained and defined completely and solely by a single book, don’t you think He would have been more clear about its creation?

I think there is a religion that works that way, and it’s called Islam.

 

[yinandyang]

There is in fact solid Scripture evidence that supports Sacred Tradition, which would include the writings of the Church Fathers. Here are some verses, found in both the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible, that would be useful to your discussion:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Romans 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

1 Peter 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." This is the word that has been proclaimed to you.

Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

Another important point to bring up is the definition of Sacred Tradition given to us by the Catholic Church, found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I. The Apostolic Tradition

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
**- orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33 **- in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

32 DV 7; cf. ⇒ Mt 28:19-20; ⇒ Mk 16:15

33 DV 7.

34 DV 7.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PK.HTM

So we see that Sacred Tradition is actually the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to the original Apostles. Since both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are members of the Holy Trinity and are therefor God, their words and teachings must be a part of God’s Word, just as Sacred Scripture (i.e. the Bible) is God’s Word as well. A simple but quite effective argument in favor of Catholic theology.

Also, we can see that 2 Thessalonians itself teaches this directly when it says “either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”. The oral statement is Sacred Tradition and the letter is Sacred Scripture, both given the same level of divine authority.

Plus we must remember that Christ established an infallable Church when He came to earth, He didn’t just write the Bible and hand it out to His followers while here. And with this infallability given to the Catholic Church came the charism to teach, without error, what makes up divine public revelation and what does not (divine public revelation including both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture). Some verses to prove the Magesterium of the Catholic Church are:

John 1:42
Matthew 16:13-19
1 Timothy 3:15
Matthew 28:19-20
John 16:13
Luke 10:16
Luke 22:24-32
John 21:14-19
John 10:11

There are more verses that could be listed, but these should suffice for now. By understanding Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, we can understand the history of Christianity from the time of Christ to the present day, and also understand how the teachings of the Church came into being, as well as what they are based upon and rooted in (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture). We can also come to an understanding of what Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church actually are, how they came to be, and why we must adhere to them.

I hope this helps.

May God bless you and Mary keep you in her prayers always.

YinandYang

 

[catholicmom2010]

I was listening to an archived show of Catholic Answers and the Apologist said that Jesus left us a Church, not a book. As His Church still stands 2000 years later: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, the perfection of His plan is completely amazing!

 

[AmataVeritas]

On the Sola Scriptura v. Apostolic Tradition issue, I often like to ask: Where did the Bible come from? How can you be sure the writings contained in the Bible are in fact the Word of God? There is no divine “Table of Contents”, so, who decides? By what authority?

Often Protestants are confident in their reading and understanding of Scripture, yet have not thought about where they get their Bible and why they should depend on them.

On the issue of sola scriptura, the fact that it is a doctrinal tradition within Protestantism, an an illogical one at that, I found the materials in the CA library helpful, as well as those at The Coming Home Network International - they have extensive journals written by former Protestants (many of them former pastors) on sola scriptura and other Catholic doctrine issues: chnetwork.org/Journal.html. Hope this helps!

 

[justamoose89]

There is in fact solid Scripture evidence that supports Sacred Tradition, which would include the writings of the Church Fathers. Here are some verses, found in both the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible, that would be useful to your discussion:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Romans 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

1 Peter 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." This is the word that has been proclaimed to you.

Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

Another important point to bring up is the definition of Sacred Tradition given to us by the Catholic Church, found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I. The Apostolic Tradition

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
**- orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33 **- in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

32 DV 7; cf. ⇒ Mt 28:19-20; ⇒ Mk 16:15

33 DV 7.

34 DV 7.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PK.HTM

So we see that Sacred Tradition is actually the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to the original Apostles. Since both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are members of the Holy Trinity and are therefor God, their words and teachings must be a part of God’s Word, just as Sacred Scripture (i.e. the Bible) is God’s Word as well. A simple but quite effective argument in favor of Catholic theology.

Also, we can see that 2 Thessalonians itself teaches this directly when it says “either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”. The oral statement is Sacred Tradition and the letter is Sacred Scripture, both given the same level of divine authority.

Plus we must remember that Christ established an infallable Church when He came to earth, He didn’t just write the Bible and hand it out to His followers while here. And with this infallability given to the Catholic Church came the charism to teach, without error, what makes up divine public revelation and what does not (divine public revelation including both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture). Some verses to prove the Magesterium of the Catholic Church are:

John 1:42
Matthew 16:13-19
1 Timothy 3:15
Matthew 28:19-20
John 16:13
Luke 10:16
Luke 22:24-32
John 21:14-19
John 10:11

There are more verses that could be listed, but these should suffice for now. By understanding Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, we can understand the history of Christianity from the time of Christ to the present day, and also understand how the teachings of the Church came into being, as well as what they are based upon and rooted in (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture). We can also come to an understanding of what Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church actually are, how they came to be, and why we must adhere to them.

I hope this helps.

May God bless you and Mary keep you in her prayers always.

YinandYang

Excellent!

 

[InspiritCarol]

Excellent!

Ditto from me!

Nice job “yinandayang”

 

[magdelaine1173]

This world-view completely slanders Jesus.

If Jesus chose completely incompetent followers, then what was the point?

If the early fathers were corrupt, then what does that make the bible which was brought to us by … the early fathers?

Nowhere, in **any **way shape or form, does Jesus say “Is anybody writing this down?”.

If the infinite God of all the universe wanted to be contained and defined completely and solely by a single book, don’t you think He would have been more clear about its creation?

Look to the Deuterocanonicals for evidence that the protestant bible is a sad massacre of sacred scripture. If Sirach 15 alone had not been removed, think of how many poor misguided souls might have been saved from meaningless pain and death.

This has some good info:
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Most important for your sanity, though: there are many proverbs regarding fools. Keep them in mind.

May God be with you.

I agree. Thanks for the research references and urls.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

I want to thank you all so much and ask a thousand blessings from all the saints, especially those associated with evangelization, for all of you. My rosary intention for today is going to be for all of you who have contributed.

I hate to confess it but one of the reasons I came and posed the question is that I am noticing that I am simply growing weary in light of the onslaught of my friends’ convictions. I can go home, spend hours or more researching what I need, writing it up and presenting arguments that have little to no weakness, and they will still find a way to undermine the entire thing. They have literally been wearing down my resolve. HOWEVER, these responses, the extensive references, the expediency of the replies and the lack of anyone jumping in and highjacking the thread for their own “Sola Scriptura Rocks!” purposes tells me that my resolve should not be worn down, but only tested. I am indeed prepared. And I am going to be ready, because tomorrow is when they’re going to be presenting me with their commentary on my commentary, and I’m going to have this to throw down on the table and prepare me for what they have prepared.

May God bless you all, and the Blessed Virgin bring you all into her bosom, and may Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine continue to shine the light of apologetics through you.

 

[justamoose89]

I want to thank you all so much and ask a thousand blessings from all the saints, especially those associated with evangelization, for all of you. My rosary intention for today is going to be for all of you who have contributed.

I hate to confess it but one of the reasons I came and posed the question is that I am noticing that I am simply growing weary in light of the onslaught of my friends’ convictions. I can go home, spend hours or more researching what I need, writing it up and presenting arguments that have little to no weakness, and they will still find a way to undermine the entire thing. They have literally been wearing down my resolve. HOWEVER, these responses, the extensive references, the expediency of the replies and the lack of anyone jumping in and highjacking the thread for their own “Sola Scriptura Rocks!” purposes tells me that my resolve should not be worn down, but only tested. I am indeed prepared. And I am going to be ready, because tomorrow is when they’re going to be presenting me with their commentary on my commentary, and I’m going to have this to throw down on the table and prepare me for what they have prepared.

May God bless you all, and the Blessed Virgin bring you all into her bosom, and may Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine continue to shine the light of apologetics through you.

Praying for you!

 

[Jimmy_B]

How clever. And after they’re done hammering out their hermeneutic, do they actually think their work has enough enduring value that it should become part of the historic consensus? Or do they think the next generation should disregard it and construct truths of their own?

Honestly I just don’t see how these people can claim, without a hint of irony, that the Church became corrupted, and then blissfully presume themselves to be immune.

Tell me, is “historical context” in scripture? Please.

Matthew 28:18-20. If any of these people heard the apostles preach, they would have discredited the entire New Testament save the gospels, because not one NT book references the teachings of Jesus - oh, and the one quotation supposedly from Jesus isn’t even in the gospels.