Leaving tradition out of the discussion, how do non-Catholics make sense of this apparent inconsistency?

[William_Pitts]

Scripture fully defined Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to “the supreme guide in Biblical studies”
Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church
**1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable
**

Most outside of the Catholic Church would ignore rule number one. But all Christians outside of the Catholic church ought to pay attentions to the last three rules particulary rule number “2” and “3”. Rule “2” states to always be guided by what the early church fathers had to say. Why? First we were not there to hear and see everything and can easily be fooled into reading something not there into Scripture or reading something out of Scripture. The First Fathers were trained by the Apostles and the preceding Fathers are closer to the time frame allowing for less corruption of the teachings to occur. We are 2,000 years removed from the original source. Second and Most Important is that Scripture is clear on this and is repeated often by Paul that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred Oral word as well as the Sacred Written word passed down.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 …Thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God Which your heard from us,…

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold teachings that you have learned whether by word (Sacred oral teaching) or by letter of ours.”

2 Thesalonians 3:6 6* Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us ( Sacred oral teachings)

Malachi 2:7; “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth. (Sacred Oral teaching)”

2 Timothy 2::2, “and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trust-worthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.”

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts as I gave them to you.”

We are told that first Christian “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42) which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written.

1Cor 11:2 and hold fast my precepts (oral teaching)

2Tim 1: 13 Hold to the form of sound teaching which thous has heard from me
.
Titus 1:3 manifested his word through the preaching committed to my trust by the Command of God

1Thes 2:13 …you heard and received from us the word of God

1Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached (Oral teaching) unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Furthermore John tells us that everything has not been written down.

John 21:25, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (Not everything concerning Christ is in the Scripture per John)

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”

The Gospels are the lecture notes not the lecture

Jn 21:25 … not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 … Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 … early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 … Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 … more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 … against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:30-31 … guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Heb 5:12 … need to be taught.

 

[joe370]

Hey Christis, sola scriptura takes the authority out of the hands of the church and places that authority in the hands of each and every Christian as they are moved by the holy spirit. If the authority of the church, founded by Jesus, as His church leaders are moved by the HS, cannot be trusted then why should the authority of each and every Christian, as they are moved by the HS - be trusted? The following is a really good point:

“What good is a foundation that dies and withers away? Just as Christ stays with us, the authority He gave to the apostles stays with us. Otherwise, you’d end up with a partially rotted foundation. So rather than the above quoted Scriptures supporting their private interpretation, it supports the Magisterium’s teaching regarding Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”

I am no expert but it seems to me this article makes numerous errors. It provides the authors’ private interpretations of various Scriptures, which we are explicitly told in 2 Peter 1:20 is not acceptable.

Take the following section:

“It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.”

They seem to gloss over the fact that Christ gave His apostles the authority to bind things on Earth and in Heaven, which pretty clearly gives them the authority to appoint successors. What good is a foundation that dies and withers away? Just as Christ stays with us, the authority He gave to the apostles stays with us. Otherwise, you’d end up with a partially rotted foundation. So rather than the above quoted Scriptures supporting their private interpretation, it supports the Magisterium’s teaching regarding Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

This seems to be just the tip of the iceberg. Is this the best case for Sola Scriptura?

 

[William_Pitts]

“He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,3

Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. **The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.
**

 

[pablope]

2 Timothy 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Really, if I know the scripture can make me wise into salvation, why would I ask for something else.

I love how catholics jump down to verse 16 and don’t read verse 15 about scripture and salvation.

I guess I can ask:
Where in scripture does is say the church is the “only” pilar in truth?
Where does the word church (body of believers) = (magesterium)?

These hypothetical questions are really suppose to make me think?

"Oh maybe if the word only is not in there, there must be another, and I guess it is the church. And Rome must be that church cause peter went to Rome, etc… "

With all due respect, we catholics actually read it from verse 14:

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them

Which speaks of oral teaching and instruction…“knowing from whom you have learned them”…knowing from who taught you…from the Apostles and their successors.

So with verse 14 and 15, both oral and scripture reading, makes a person whole…both oral and scripture, not scripture alone.

 

[pablope]

Your understanding is not the correct interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Luther (who coined the phrase) meant for it to mean that Scripture is the Ultimate Source of Truth. It is inspired by God, however it was never meant to thorugh out tradition completely. What he intended was that traditions that contradicted scripture or inspired corruption were to be discarded. Not all tradition was to be throw out, not were the Early Church father’s writings to be throw out. Unfortunatly many denominations have essentially misinterpreted this to mean Scripture only. A Scripture only take would by it’s nature have th throw out all creeds, sermons, and writings as they are not in Scripture. This is not and was never the intent of Sola Scriptura.

Could you show us where Luther defined the doctrine of SS? I have heard scholars say he only asserted it.

 

[joe370]

equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura

Article: “It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.”

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

The argument is deductive at best. Nowhere does the bible tell us that the bible is the only source of infallibility; if that were the case you would not trust the infallible declarations of the early ecumenical councils - eg the Trinity. To say that all apostolic tradition on faith and practice is in the New Testament is quite presumptuous and deductive at best, for it is not spelled out in scripture - anywhere! If it is to be believed, as per sola scriptura,** it must be found in scripture. **

So those church leaders in the preceding passage, (to the third generation) - who were entrusted with authority by Titus, who in turn was entrusted with authority by Paul, all of which, including Paul, were not eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, did not possess apostolic authority?

*Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you. *

Did this stop at some point in history?

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

So these appointed elders entrusted with authority, who were not eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, did not possess apostolic authority?

*It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of bishop, it is a fine work he desires to do.

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you bishop, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
*

Did these bishops, who were not witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, possess apostolic authority in light of the fact that the holy spirit through the imposition of hands, made them shepherds of Jesus’ church?

 

[joe370]

“He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,3

Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. **The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.
**

Exactly. If, Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church, then it must not have been the practice of the apostles.

Tradition was the benchmark by which sacred scripture was eventually codified, in the 4th century.

 

[joe370]

I’m not opposing the Catholic view of tradition. In fact, I would say the Jewish perspective is closer to Catholicism since it relies quite a bit on rabbinical interpretation of the Torah, which that article is critical of. The only difference is that rabbinical interpretation within Judaism is just that: interpretation, not infallibility. How could it be, since rabbis always disagree! Still, it does fit under the category of authoritative tradition that is followed in practice. Back to the article, I appreciate some of its arguments, but I’m sure–as I suggested–that Catholics have just as good a rebuttal. Please understand I’m not taking sides in this “battle.” I’m just observing and commenting when something appeals to me.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut brother. Below is an interesting site called catholics for Israel; it’s really cool.

israelcatholic.com/content/section/6/119/lang,en/

If you get the chance, PM me and let me know what you think?

 

[joe370]

Hey Rbarcia…

Really, if I know the scripture can make me wise into salvation, why would I ask for something else.

If perseverance makes the Christian complete, lacking nothing, then why would I need anything else?

• Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.*

Makes me kind of wonder why Paul said: Obey your spiritual leaders and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they know they are accountable to God - if scripture is all one needs to be wise into salvation?

I love how catholics jump down to verse 16 and don’t read verse 15 about scripture and salvation.

Well, if the CC leaders are unnecessary, so are all of the non-Catholic leaders - yes?

I guess I can ask:
Where in scripture does is say the church is the “only” pilar in truth?
Where does the word church (body of believers) = (magesterium)?

These hypothetical questions are really suppose to make me think?

"Oh maybe if the word only is not in there, there must be another, and I guess it is the church. And Rome must be that church cause peter went to Rome, etc… "

It doesn’t say the church is the only pillar…Sacred scripture, where truth can be found + sacred tradition, where truth can be found + the church founded by God, forever guided by the HS, into all truth, where truth can be found, comprise the pillar and foundation of truth.

Magisterium is Latin for teaching office and last I checked every non-Catholic church had a teaching office.

 

[joe370]

Good point. Nor was scripture to be the Christians final authority via private interpretation, supplanting the authority of Jesus’ church teaching office, which was why Martin Luther probably said:

"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; . . . There is not an individual, however clownish he may be who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. " - Martin Luther

Your understanding is not the correct interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Luther (who coined the phrase) meant for it to mean that Scripture is the Ultimate Source of Truth. It is inspired by God, however it was never meant to thorugh out tradition completely. What he intended was that traditions that contradicted scripture or inspired corruption were to be discarded. Not all tradition was to be throw out, not were the Early Church father’s writings to be throw out. Unfortunatly many denominations have essentially misinterpreted this to mean Scripture only. A Scripture only take would by it’s nature have th throw out all creeds, sermons, and writings as they are not in Scripture. This is not and was never the intent of Sola Scriptura.

 

[joe370]

Hey Nicea…

How does the OT support or prove Sola Scriptura?

It doesn’t.

Where do ANY of the Apostles ever mention or teach Sola Scriptura?

They never mention it or teach it.

Where and when was the OT used and taught as Sola Scriptura?

Nowhere and never…

Second, not all Jews adhered to the same books prior to Jesus,so EXACTLY what books are in support of sola scriptura?

Really good question!!!

Yeah…and? Where does the NT teach that with the death of the last Apostle,the written word ALONE is THE only infallible source for faith and morals?

Actually, scripture teaches just the opposite. No one, not even the reformers, believed in sola scriptura via private judgment. Martin Luther was aghast upon seeing the division that SS wrought:

"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; . . . There is not an individual, however clownish he may be who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. " ML…

 

[joe370]

Rbarciahere if Jesus’ church is forever being guided by the holy spirit into all truth, and Jesus continues to be with His church until the end of time, as per sacred scripture, then isn’t Jesus’ church (“I will build MY church”) - inspired by Jesus to teach infallibly until the end of time, or, has Jesus allowed His church leaders to teach fallibly regarding all that He taught and revealed so long ago?

 

[rbarcia]

Rbarciahere if Jesus’ church is forever being guided by the holy spirit into all truth, and Jesus continues to be with His church until the end of time, as per sacred scripture, then isn’t Jesus’ church (“I will build MY church”) - inspired by Jesus to teach infallibly until the end of time, or, has Jesus allowed His church leaders to teach fallibly regarding all that He taught and revealed so long ago?

church = believers. Not Magesterium.

Jesus allowed His church leaders to teach fallibly regarding all that He taught and revealed so long ago?

So men still make mistakes, even Peter did.

Gal 2

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

 

[Nicea325]

church = believers. Not Magesterium.

So men still make mistakes, even Peter did.

Gal 2

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

The Magesterium is part of the larger church,not just the laity. Peter was not teaching false doctrine,but moreover,it was a case of disciplinary action. Gal 2 in no shape or form negates or debunks infallibility or authority.

 

[Nicea325]

Hey Nicea…

It doesn’t.

They never mention it or teach it.

Nowhere and never…

Really good question!!!

Actually, scripture teaches just the opposite. No one, not even the reformers, believed in sola scriptura via private judgment. Martin Luther was aghast upon seeing the division that SS wrought:

"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; . . . There is not an individual, however clownish he may be who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. " ML…

Hey Joe! The link provided by rightlydivide is nothing new. I have heard it from so many SS advocates it does not matter how they present it or defend it, SS is bogus…plain and simple!

 

[rbarcia]

The Magesterium is part of the larger church,not just the laity. Peter was not teaching false doctrine,but moreover,it was a case of disciplinary action. Gal 2 in no shape or form negates or debunks infallibility or authority.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

I think that correction of teaching is also part of the correction. Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians to address the very teaching of false gospels. Why would he use an example of correcting Peter if it did not have doctrinal issues.

Gal 1

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

 

[MDK]

equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura

So, where in the Bible do you find that the “Bible alone” is the rule of faith?

Kind of ironic that the “Bible alone” is not in the Bible, isn’t it?

See, sola scriptura didn’t exist until the time of the printing press. Sola scriptura is not only un-Biblical, it’s anti-Scriptural. It’s one of the traditions of men that Scriptures teach against.

 

[MDK]

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

I think that correction of teaching is also part of the correction. Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians to address the very teaching of false gospels. Why would he use an example of correcting Peter if it did not have doctrinal issues…

It’s clear that it was not a doctrinal issue at all, but a personal practice of Peter. Please note that Paul thought it was a big deal as well, because Paul is correcting the behavior of Peter who is the leader of the Apostles… the head Apostle.

Also, do you know what the phrase “works of the law” is? It’s a Hebraic catch phrase for the Mosaic laws. It has nothing to do with works of faith in Christ, which confirm our faith and make it a living faith, without which faith is dead.

 

[MDK]

…
Gal 1

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

You’ve quoted the Scriptures describing ills of heretical theologies like Protestantism / Fundamentalism.

 

[MDK]

…

I think that correction of teaching is also part of the correction. Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians to address the very teaching of false gospels. Why would he use an example of correcting Peter if it did not have doctrinal issues.
…

You appear to think many things that God didn’t teach. Therefore, you have your own word in your heart and mind, not necessarily God’s word.