Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

  • Thread starter Thread starter psteichen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

psteichen

Guest
I am having a difficulty in arguing against Sola Scriptura.

On one hand many apologists state that the Catholic Church fully agrees that the Scriptures are materially sufficient. But Sola Scriptura fails because it also claims formal sufficiency for Scripture (ie, it interprets itself, or the average reader can do so with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

On the other hand the writings of the Church Fathers are full of references to Apostolic Tradition handed down in addition to Scripture.

How do I reconcile the two? It seems to me that Scripture cannot be materially sufficient if there is additional revelation contained only in Sacred Tradition.

I am probably missing something in my logic here, and I would appreciate any responses that could help clear up this confusion for me. I don’t really need any other explanations of the failings of sola scriptura, because I have studied it extensively and fully agree that it cannot be supported. I just need clarification of this one point I mentioned above.

Thanks! 👍
 
psteichen said:
I am having a difficulty in arguing against Sola Scriptura.

On one hand many apologists state that the Catholic Church fully agrees that the Scriptures are materially sufficient. But Sola Scriptura fails because it also claims formal sufficiency for Scripture (ie, it interprets itself, or the average reader can do so with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

On the other hand the writings of the Church Fathers are full of references to Apostolic Tradition handed down in addition to Scripture.

How do I reconcile the two? It seems to me that Scripture cannot be materially sufficient if there is additional revelation contained only in Sacred Tradition.

I am probably missing something in my logic here, and I would appreciate any responses that could help clear up this confusion for me. I don’t really need any other explanations of the failings of sola scriptura, because I have studied it extensively and fully agree that it cannot be supported. I just need clarification of this one point I mentioned above.

Thanks! 👍
Click to expand...
If Scripture was all we had there is enough Truth there for salvation. That is what materially sufficient means. It’s as if you had a blue print for the constuction of a building. It is sufficient to say that I can construct a building but not necessarily all buildings. But we know that in addition to Sacred Scripture which reveals sufficient truth there is also Sacred Tradition which also reveals the truth in that written Tradition is Sacred Scripture. Sola Scriptura is self refuting simply in the fact that Scripture by itself cannot claim inspiration as that is a circular argument with no basis. John says at the end of his gospel account," 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." ( John 21:25)

So there is no contradiction. God Bless you…teachccd:)
 
teachccd: Thanks. So, if I understand your idea, you would say that while Scripture is materially sufficient, sufficiency does not necessitate totality. There may be additional revelation found in Tradition that, while not being necessary, is helpful and gives us the full picture.

That sounds good. I’d welcome other ideas as well, because something sounds misleading about saying Tradition is not necessary.
 
psteichen said:
teachccd: Thanks. So, if I understand your idea, you would say that while Scripture is materially sufficient, sufficiency does not necessitate totality. There may be additional revelation found in Tradition that, while not being necessary, is helpful and gives us the full picture.

That sounds good. I’d welcome other ideas as well, because something sounds misleading about saying Tradition is not necessary.
Click to expand...
ALL revelation is necessary or else some things that Jesus did would not be necessary since He is the fullness of God’s revelation. But again, like you said, sufficiency does not necessitate totality. I NEVER said that Sacred Tradition was not necessary. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition along with the Magisterium make up a single deposit of faith. Jesus Himself is revelation but not every single thing He did was recorded or must be known to have enough for salvation. Those things recorded in Scripture are the sufficient items necessary for salvation but not everything that one could know. Scripture is really written Tradition as it draws itself from what was already preached. I hope that I cleared things a little… God Bless…teachccd:)
 
Let’s look at this from a different angle. The early Church wanted to develop a canon of Scriptures. When they examined the available texts (there were some 110 writings considered for the NT Canon), they settled on the Scriptures that supported the Sacred Traditions they’d been using since the time of Christ.

For instance, let’s say they had a book called “The Gospel of Notworthy”. It had a lot of good stuff in it, but it talked about the need of going bare-foot everywhere since God is everywhere, and hence, everywhere is hallowed ground. This gospel called it a sin to wear shoes. Obviously, no matter how good the rest of the gospel taught, this “Sola Barefoot” theology doesn’t fly with Sacred Tradition. Hence, “the Gospel of Notworthy” would be considered Apochryphal.

Do you get where I’m going? The Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament rely on Sacred Tradition, not the other way around. If the Scriptures taught something contrary to Sacred Tradition, they were thrown out with the rest of the books.
 
Think of a brick house. Sacred Tradition represents the bricks and Sacred Scripture represents the mortar.

Nope, that’s wrong, for we’ve ignored the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

I guess the analogy I heard still applies. You’ve got a three-legged stool. The three legs are:
a) Sacred Scripture
b) Sacred Tradition
c) The Papacy and the Magisterium

Without any of these legs, the stool would fall, and you’d have a whole bunch of little stools. Some would claim about 33,000 stools. I’d guess about 500, but that’s still 499 too many.
 
If the scriptures alone were sufficient. Why are there so many (thousands) Protestant denominations all reading the same scriptures?
 
bauerice said:
If the scriptures alone were sufficient. Why are there so many (thousands) Protestant denominations all reading the same scriptures?
Click to expand...
Semantics here. Sufficiency of what?? Salvation? Knowledge of God?? or total Revelation? Total revelation is Jesus Christ who founded a Church who wrote the New Testament through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and acknowledged the same in the same Spirit of Truth. Sufficiency and totality are two serparate concepts. Tradition aligns itself with Scripture and vice versa.

If I have five parables talking about the love of God and are paralled in nature, two would be sufficient to know that God loves me but all five would reflect the totality of this particlar revelation. Anyway, yes there are multitudes of Christian denominations because “Scripture alone” has no foundation on which to stand. One cannot even prove the inspiration of Scripture with scripture alone. It’s a circular argument that refutes itself. The Book of Mormon claims inspiration. So how would we know??

God Bless…teachccd 🙂
 
As I said on another thread, there was a case here where someone was attacking the Catholic concept of Scripture and Tradition. So I asked him a question:

Me. “Who wrote Revelation?”

Him: “John, of course!”

Me: “But which John?”

Him: “John the Apostle, of course!”

Me: “And how do you know that?”

He never replied, and so far as I know has not posted again in these forums.

(The answer to the question he wouldn’t answer is, “We know it was John the Apostle because Tradition tells us so.” In this case, the transmitter of the Tradition is Polycarp, who knew John personally – and may have been the person who received Revelation after John wrote it.)
 
Sola Scriptura = U.S. Constitution

Magisterium = U.S. Supreme Court

Now no more would the Constitution be thrown into the hands of citizens to interpret on their own than Scripture is to be placed in the hand of Christians for personal interpretation. God is a tad bit smarter than the U.S. Supreme Court… or maybe inifitely smarter…🙂
 
The bible does not interpret itself and no one outside of the Church will be correct in their interpretation.
We can see this already today and that is convincing enough for me.
 
Hellisreal said:
The bible does not interpret itself and no one outside of the Church will be correct in their interpretation.
We can see this already today and that is convincing enough for me.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to note what Augustine said about the interpretation of Scripture.
“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
Click to expand...
 
Hellisreal said:
How and where do you find contradiction in my post and what Augustine said?

:confused:

You are loosing me.
Click to expand...
Patenthetically, one might note that Augustine was a Catholoic Bishop and partook of the Magisterium – he had the teaching authority by virtue of being consecrated a Bishop.

And he doesn’t say “Scripture interprets itself.” If I may paraphrase him, he said, “Here is a means by which a person with the authority to teach may interpret scripture.”
 
Hellisreal said:
How and where do you find contradiction in my post and what Augustine said?

:confused:

You are loosing me.
Click to expand...
What Augustine is saying is that all matters concerning faith and manner of life is clear in the Scritoures and that the clear passages allow us to interpret the unclear. The Scripture does interpret itself.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Patenthetically, one might note that Augustine was a Catholoic Bishop and partook of the Magisterium – he had the teaching authority by virtue of being consecrated a Bishop.

And he doesn’t say “Scripture interprets itself.” If I may paraphrase him, he said, “Here is a means by which a person with the authority to teach may interpret scripture.”
Click to expand...
Where does he say anything about having authority?
 
Irenaeus says similarly and quite clearly says they can be understood by all.
  1. A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures…Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; (Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:27:1-2))
Click to expand...
 
SyCarl said:
Where does he say anything about having authority?
Click to expand...
He was a bishop. The authority comes with the territory.

Now turn that around – where does he say the laity can authoritatively interpret scripture?
 
SyCarl said:
What Augustine is saying is that all matters concerning faith and manner of life is clear in the Scritoures and that the clear passages allow us to interpret the unclear. The Scripture does interpret itself.
Click to expand...
I do not agree, in fact- I object to your personal interpretation of a single passage of Augustine’s writings which do not even support your position.

do you have a bible verse to support your claim that the scripture does, indeed interpret itself?

I believe this can only be done one way, but I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top