S
SimonArizona
Guest
I’m exhausted, not ducking out.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
teak421
Guest
Men also wrote the Bible. Why can’t that same Holy Spirit that inspired the Bibical writers also inspire Christ’s Church?This is where I have trouble. Men decided what was to be included in the Bible. As we know men are fallible. It was not until very much later that the Pope declared himself infallible. In times past there could be many Popes at one time just in the way the Church leaders looked at things. So right now we have a book, called the Bible, that all are suppose to believe. Translated by men, written down by men, and we are told it is the word of God.
- Michael
W
wmscott
Guest
mathematician;5723328:
I am at a bit of a loss here, what did i say yes to? I can not find it.Where in Scripture does it say that the WHOLE of Christian faith is ONLY found in the Bible?
If you can not answer this question, you are violating your own rules of Sola Scriptura.
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
Two questions… Where does the Bible say its the supreme rule of faith? and second, who determines who “rightly” interprets scripture?No. The Bible is the supreme rule of faith but can only be rightly interpreted in the context of the historic Christian tradition and the ongoing discernment of the Christian community.Edwin
- Michael
Z
zapaleda
Guest
According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical by which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call “Sola Scriptura,” or, “Scripture Alone.” Catholics then challenge, “Is Sola Scriptura biblical?”
The Bible does not say “Do not use tradition” or “Scripture alone is sufficient.” But the Bible does not say “The Trinity is three persons in one God,” either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel – which we will look at below.
In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:
The Bible does not say “Do not use tradition” or “Scripture alone is sufficient.” But the Bible does not say “The Trinity is three persons in one God,” either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel – which we will look at below.
In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:
- The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus’ temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?
- It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.
- In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition – for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust Sacred Tradition, then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.
- If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in Sacred Tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.
- Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God’s Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God’s revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.
Z
zapaleda
Guest
Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn’t mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesnt, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
Objections Answered
The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.
The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn’t require inspiration of any sort. But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word “tradition” is changed between the first and second reference. There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired. But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary-worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.
Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic church produced the Bible. The RCC did not produce the Bible. God produced the Bible and the Christian Church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored. To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means. This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?
Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to scripture.
At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the Word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised by people that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.
The Bible clearly tells us that God’s Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God’s Word warns us against following it.
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. See “Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition”. The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other,” (1 Cor. 4:6).
Heb. 7:7 is not about scripture, but about people and cannot be used to subject Sacred Tradition to the Bible
It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,
“Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.”
The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendents of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship.1 It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. We know that there is a principle of the greater in authority blessing the lesser. Can we not also apply this same principle of authority to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim on Sacred Tradition as being authoritative as compared to the authority of Scripture? I do not see why not. After all, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to Scripture to support its Sacred Tradition. In so doing, it is submitting itself to the authority of Scripture for validation of its principle.
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
- One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various “traditions” in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition, as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.
Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesnt, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
Objections Answered
The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.
The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn’t require inspiration of any sort. But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word “tradition” is changed between the first and second reference. There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired. But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary-worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.
Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic church produced the Bible. The RCC did not produce the Bible. God produced the Bible and the Christian Church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored. To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means. This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?
Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to scripture.
At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the Word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised by people that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.
The Bible clearly tells us that God’s Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God’s Word warns us against following it.
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. See “Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition”. The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other,” (1 Cor. 4:6).
Heb. 7:7 is not about scripture, but about people and cannot be used to subject Sacred Tradition to the Bible
It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,
“Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.”
The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendents of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship.1 It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. We know that there is a principle of the greater in authority blessing the lesser. Can we not also apply this same principle of authority to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim on Sacred Tradition as being authoritative as compared to the authority of Scripture? I do not see why not. After all, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to Scripture to support its Sacred Tradition. In so doing, it is submitting itself to the authority of Scripture for validation of its principle.
M
mathematician
Guest
teak421;5723801:
I am at a bit of a loss too. That quote comes from teal421, not from me.I am at a bit of a loss here, what did i say yes to? I can not find it.
C
Contarini
Guest
When you hear me say that all true ideas are found in the Bible, you can ask me that question.Two questions… Where does the Bible say its the supreme rule of faith?
The Church. The problem is that at least since the Reformation Western Christians have been forced into this false dichotomy of an over-centralized, authoritarian Catholic Church which does not do justice to the universal priesthood of the baptized, and a hopelessly divided, ever more anarchic Protestantism with no authority structures that carry real weight. Blaming either side for this situation and trying to heal the division by accepting the claims of one side in toto is not the answer. It’s tempting, but it involves shutting one’s eyes to reality–something that goes on a lot on this forum.and second, who determines who “rightly” interprets scripture?
Edwin
W
wmscott
Guest
Sorry, I have been off for a while. While my intent was to get an understanding of what Protestants think, and I will admit that I placed this in the wrong forum, I am amazed and then again not at the many directions this thread can and is going. I have seen many scripture verses thrown out to support various Protestant views. What interests me is how much they were out of context or for that matter supported a Catholic position, although unintended.
While only touched on, and most Protestants stayed away from, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. What is funny is the Bible quotes regarding the scripture verses talking about that not everything Jesus did or said was recorded in the Bible. This goes to the spoken word of God. Who preserved it, and by what means was it preserved? Was it just tossed and lost in obscurity? On the other hand, did Sacred Tradition pass it along? Up until the invention of the printing press how was Sacred Scripture transmitted to the masses? Again was it Sacred Tradition? In addition, how did the whole of Christianity up until the reformation stay on one page? Could it be the teaching authority of the CC?
This is where I like to use the three legged stool analogy. The seat being the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ, the Church Christ established Himself. To support the seat there are three legs to the stool the first being Sacred Scripture, the second being Sacred Tradition, and the third being the Magisterium or teaching authority of the church. As for Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, these are Biblical.
Many of not most or all Protestants will fight (Protest) the concepts of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, that is fine with me. However, when you look at the state of the world and Christianity today I have to wonder how being separated from all that Christ did and established here on earth is a good thing. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church did not just appear unexpectedly. The Bulwark of Truth and Pillar of Faith did not just materialize from thin air. That the Scripture verse “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It.” and for 2000+ years it has prevailed thru good and bad.
Therefore, while my intent was to get a view of what Protestants are thinking, I am saddened by how much they are missing.
While only touched on, and most Protestants stayed away from, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. What is funny is the Bible quotes regarding the scripture verses talking about that not everything Jesus did or said was recorded in the Bible. This goes to the spoken word of God. Who preserved it, and by what means was it preserved? Was it just tossed and lost in obscurity? On the other hand, did Sacred Tradition pass it along? Up until the invention of the printing press how was Sacred Scripture transmitted to the masses? Again was it Sacred Tradition? In addition, how did the whole of Christianity up until the reformation stay on one page? Could it be the teaching authority of the CC?
This is where I like to use the three legged stool analogy. The seat being the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ, the Church Christ established Himself. To support the seat there are three legs to the stool the first being Sacred Scripture, the second being Sacred Tradition, and the third being the Magisterium or teaching authority of the church. As for Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, these are Biblical.
Many of not most or all Protestants will fight (Protest) the concepts of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, that is fine with me. However, when you look at the state of the world and Christianity today I have to wonder how being separated from all that Christ did and established here on earth is a good thing. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church did not just appear unexpectedly. The Bulwark of Truth and Pillar of Faith did not just materialize from thin air. That the Scripture verse “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It.” and for 2000+ years it has prevailed thru good and bad.
Therefore, while my intent was to get a view of what Protestants are thinking, I am saddened by how much they are missing.
T
teak421
Guest
So, Edwin, what do you do? Determine your own doctrines?When you hear me say that all true ideas are found in the Bible, you can ask me that question.
The Church. The problem is that at least since the Reformation Western Christians have been forced into this false dichotomy of an over-centralized, authoritarian Catholic Church which does not do justice to the universal priesthood of the baptized, and a hopelessly divided, ever more anarchic Protestantism with no authority structures that carry real weight. Blaming either side for this situation and trying to heal the division by accepting the claims of one side in toto is not the answer. It’s tempting, but it involves shutting one’s eyes to reality–something that goes on a lot on this forum.
Edwin
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical by which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call “Sola Scriptura,” or, “Scripture Alone.” Catholics then challenge, “Is Sola Scriptura biblical?”
Hi there! Thanks for your thoughts…
Note on 2 Tim 3:16. Its important that you read two verses up. If anything, the verse in its entirety clearly shows the need for BOTH Scripture (Old Testament in this case) and tradition. Also, we have Paul in several cases saying to “hold fast” to the teaching either through the written word of by word of mouth. No where, do we see Paul giving a preference to the written word.
Response:
The use of 2 Tim. 3:16 is suspect. First, Paul was referring to the Old Testament, and two, you really need to go just two verses up. This clearly points out that BOTH are needed.
- If you remember, we had a Bishop named Arias who believed with Scripture that Christ was NOT God… The Church, not Scripture determined that Arias and his followers were wrong. You can review the document by Alexander of Alexandria where he calls people who follow Arias “aliens” to the Catholic Church. Simple google will find you that document.
- I disagree. If Christ and his Apostles determined that the only way to transmit the Gospel was by written word don’t you think it would have been laid out? Additionally, do you show much grace when Catholics talk about the Assumption of Mary? Or, do you say “where is this in the Bible?”
- Clearly Scripture is wonderful and should be studied. However, by sayings it has its primacy then presents problems. For example, the basic doctrine of salvation can not be agree upon by Protestant sects. Some believe you must speak in tongues, others believe you pre-destined (Calvinists), others believe you must be baptized in Jesus’s name only, etc. Is it reasonable that our Lord would setup his Church and put that deposit into a book where many different people come to many different conclusions? Catholics believe the Word of God is transmitted both orally and verbally. If you can find Scripture that says its ONLY transmitted via the written word, please forward.
Additionally, do we have a Table of Contents? Who determined what would be in the Canon? How was that determined?
Finally, I challenge you to take the time to read this document: geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
- First off, no one says its independent. it works in concert with Scripture and the Magistratium… ALL, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Tell me, when you read Scripture how do you determine which doctrines are valid or not? How do you know what doctrines you adhere to are correct?
- Have you read any documentation on how the Church got those doctrines? For example, Mary (much to my surprise when I was a protestant) was discussed at length by various early church fathers. Also, the Eucharist (Communion) was without a doubt believed to be the actual Body and Blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It wasn’t until the late 1500’s that we started saying it was a symbol. My point, research each of these, read and you will see, its really not all the odd. And, besides, Assumption of Mary compared to the 20 different ways Protestants believe about salvation… Which is worse and more harmful to the Church?
When you have done that, PLEASE come back here and let us know your opinion.
Thanks again for your post and sorry about my bad grammar and spelling.
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
What came first, the Bible or the Church?Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn’t mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
Conclusion
- One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various “traditions” in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition, as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.
Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesnt, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
Objections Answered
The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.
The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn’t require inspiration of any sort. But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word “tradition” is changed between the first and second reference. There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired. But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary-worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.
Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic church produced the Bible. The RCC did not produce the Bible. God produced the Bible and the Christian Church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored. To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means. This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?
Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to scripture.
At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the Word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised by people that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.
The Bible clearly tells us that God’s Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God’s Word warns us against following it.
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. See “Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition”. The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other,” (1 Cor. 4:6).
Heb. 7:7 is not about scripture, but about people and cannot be used to subject Sacred Tradition to the Bible
It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,
“Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.”
The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendents of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship.1 It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. We know that there is a principle of the greater in authority blessing the lesser. Can we not also apply this same principle of authority to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim on Sacred Tradition as being authoritative as compared to the authority of Scripture? I do not see why not. After all, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to Scripture to support its Sacred Tradition. In so doing, it is submitting itself to the authority of Scripture for validation of its principle.
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
wmscott;5742644:
i saw that too… Something is whacked with the forum software…I am at a bit of a loss too. That quote comes from teal421, not from me.
Maybe its the Lord telling us to shut up?
- Michael
C
Contarini
Guest
Not mine.so says our experience and observation of history.
Wrong wording. There are thousands of interpretations of Scripture within Catholicism too, but they don’t result in division. Nor do all Protestant “denominations” result from differing interpretation of Scripture. But obviously there are many divisions based on differing interpretation of Scripture. The problem for your argument is that these divisions show clearly that Protestants do not simply believe in the teaching authority of their denominations, or new divisions would not keep happening.Christians do not beleive in the bible alone. They believe in what the teaching authority of their denomination teaches the bible says. There are 1,000’s of interpretations of Scripture, no?
Of course no one really believes purely in the Bible alone. When fundamentalists come onto this forum and start spouting such nonsense, I’ll help you set them straight. Until then, please avoid setting up straw men that distract from the real issue.
But it took the Church centuries to do this. Authority in the early Church was a slow, cumbersome, consensus-based, and very fuzzy process.Is this God’s work or the work of the beast? Jesus prayed in John that we’d all be one. God is not the author of confusion. Jesus gave his Church authority, authority to speak and teach in His name for example; “he who hears you hears me.”, , authority to assemble the letters of the bible and declare them infallible.
Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by Scripture being “primary” then. I grant that genuinely apostolic tradition handed down as authoritative teaching would be equal to Scripture. The problem is that in the year 2009 it’s pretty hard to identify any such tradition. The problem many of us have with the position of your Communion is that it makes it too easy to slip in anything the Magisterium declares as being Apostolic Tradition. That just isn’t a convincing position. It’s sleight of hand.Scripture is very much so regarded as primary but equal to it is Tradition.
I think it’s quite possible that infant baptism and prayer for the dead and perhaps a few other things (a concept of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, for instance) were handed down orally. We find them soon enough in early Christian writing to make this plausible (and in the case of prayer for the dead, of course we have it in 2 Maccabees, which at the very least proves that it was a Hellenistic Jewish practice).
I’m talking about how it was used in the early Church. I presume that you don’t think there were sola scriptura believers back then?Scripture is always used also because it is the only thing many Christians accept.
Edwin
T
teak421
Guest
What is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn’t mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
Conclusion
- One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various “traditions” in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition, as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.
Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesnt, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
Objections Answered
The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.
The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn’t require inspiration of any sort. But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word “tradition” is changed between the first and second reference. There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired. But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary-worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.
Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic church produced the Bible. The RCC did not produce the Bible. God produced the Bible and the Christian Church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored. To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means. This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?
Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to scripture.
At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the Word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised by people that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.
The Bible clearly tells us that God’s Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God’s Word warns us against following it.
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. See “Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition”. The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other,” (1 Cor. 4:6).
Heb. 7:7 is not about scripture, but about people and cannot be used to subject Sacred Tradition to the Bible
It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,
“Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.”
The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendents of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship.1 It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. We know that there is a principle of the greater in authority blessing the lesser. Can we not also apply this same principle of authority to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim on Sacred Tradition as being authoritative as compared to the authority of Scripture? I do not see why not. After all, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to Scripture to support its Sacred Tradition. In so doing, it is submitting itself to the authority of Scripture for validation of its principle.
S
SimonArizona
Guest
I’ll be back in ten for my rejoinder.Not mine.
Wrong wording. There are thousands of interpretations of Scripture within Catholicism too, but they don’t result in division. Nor do all Protestant “denominations” result from differing interpretation of Scripture. But obviously there are many divisions based on differing interpretation of Scripture. The problem for your argument is that these divisions show clearly that Protestants do not simply believe in the teaching authority of their denominations, or new divisions would not keep happening.
Of course no one really believes purely in the Bible alone. When fundamentalists come onto this forum and start spouting such nonsense, I’ll help you set them straight. Until then, please avoid setting up straw men that distract from the real issue.
But it took the Church centuries to do this. Authority in the early Church was a slow, cumbersome, consensus-based, and very fuzzy process.
Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by Scripture being “primary” then. I grant that genuinely apostolic tradition handed down as authoritative teaching would be equal to Scripture. The problem is that in the year 2009 it’s pretty hard to identify any such tradition. The problem many of us have with the position of your Communion is that it makes it too easy to slip in anything the Magisterium declares as being Apostolic Tradition. That just isn’t a convincing position. It’s sleight of hand.
I think it’s quite possible that infant baptism and prayer for the dead and perhaps a few other things (a concept of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, for instance) were handed down orally. We find them soon enough in early Christian writing to make this plausible (and in the case of prayer for the dead, of course we have it in 2 Maccabees, which at the very least proves that it was a Hellenistic Jewish practice).
I’m talking about how it was used in the early Church. I presume that you don’t think there were sola scriptura believers back then?
Edwin
T
teak421
Guest
Let me ask you something… Is it reasonable for Christ to setup his Church and to have the deposit of Faith transmitted via a book… a book that frankly was not widely available until the printing press was created? Is this reasonable? What about the rural areas in the year 782… villages that did a ton of farming, etc. What did these people do? Did they have HAND COPIED Bibles? Do you know how long it takes to hand copy the Bible?According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical by which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call “Sola Scriptura,” or, “Scripture Alone.” Catholics then challenge, “Is Sola Scriptura biblical?”
So, again… is it reasonable that our Lord would use a transmission method that only .1 percent of the population could use for the first 15 centuries?
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
Edwin OR anyone, could you please forward some ECF’s who adhered to the traditional of sola scriptura? Document names would make it easier so I could review.I’m talking about how it was used in the early Church. I presume that you don’t think there were sola scriptura believers back then?
Edwin
Thanks in advance!
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
For zapaleda ,
You said that God produced the Bible, not the Catholic Church. Could you explain the PROCESS which God used? Also, who were the human participants in the process?
You said that God produced the Bible, not the Catholic Church. Could you explain the PROCESS which God used? Also, who were the human participants in the process?
- Michael
W
wmscott
Guest
WOW, a lot of misinformation and anti-Catholicism. Let’s stick with Sacred Tradition for nowNevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison.
PART ONE
It is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices, which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. I agree, Jesus did in fact warn about man-made traditions; however, He fully understood the importance of Sacred Tradition.
In fact, Sacred Scripture states that the true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Dei Verbum
(Latin: “The Word of God”)
Is the relationship between Tradition and Scripture? Hence, there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, Sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
By the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore, both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.
Since you seem so keen on following the Sacred Scriptures, which is a good thing by the way, there is two ways “Tradition” is cited in the Bible. One way is in a positive light when discussing “Sacred Tradition” and then in a negative light when discussing “Man-Made Tradition”. There is a very clear and indisputable difference between the two. As for the “Man-Made Tradition” it is very clear that it is counterproductive and needed to be avoided. The Bible clearly in Matthew 15: 1-6, Mark 7: 1-13, & Colossians 2:8 (I have provided the full passages so that it would be in context) warns against “Man-Made Tradition”. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is talking about the “Man-Made Tradition” of the washing of hands before eating (Ritual Purification).
“Man-Made Tradition”
Matthew 15: 1-6 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal.” He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Mark 7: 1-13 Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands. (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders. And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).) So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, “Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?” He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’ You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.” He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban”’ (meaning, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.”
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.