Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[SyCarl]

Sorry, I am still not seeing “Scripture Alone” here.

St. Timothy knew the teachings of the Church; he wasn’t starting from ground zero. He was reading the Scriptures in the light of the Church’s teachings, which he had already been taught by word of mouth through his Catechism. He would find evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrines of the Church because he had already been exposed to the doctrines of the Church, and he would find examples that illustrate the Church’s moral teachings in the Scriptures, because he already knew what the moral teachings were.

Yes, the Scriptures are really important. Nobody in the Catholic Church has ever said that they are not important.

St Chrysostom was giving a homily about them, rather than sending everyone home to read the Bible by themselves, because the Catholic Bishops are also very important.

We are not talking about Timothy here but the people to whom Chrysostom was speaking. He says that Timothy was special, and that if Paul told him this about the Scripture that it applies to us all the more. By the way, was there a Catechism in the first century? I don’t know.

 

[jmcrae]

We are not talking about Timothy here but the people to whom Chrysostom was speaking. He says that Timothy was special, and that if Paul told him this about the Scripture that it applies to us all the more.

Yes, and it applies to us in the same way that it applied to Timothy. We don’t look for doctrine itself in the Scriptures - we won’t find it. (There is no explicit statement about the Trinity in Scripture, for example - and if you doubt it, try debating with a Oneness Pentecostal about it.) But we find support for our doctrines in Scripture, and once we learn the doctrines, the supports we find in Scripture seem loud and clear - we (you and I) see the doctrine of the Trinity throughout the New Testament because we have been taught it. Oneness Pentecostals can’t find even a trace or hint of it, because they have never been taught it.

We also don’t look for morality in Scripture - in fact, if we were to imitate the lives of most of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Matriarchs, we’d end up in some pretty deep trouble. But once we do know the moral teachings, having learned them from the Church, we can find strong and clear examples of them in the Scriptures.

By the way, was there a Catechism in the first century? I don’t know.

Yes - it was called the Didache, which means “Teachings.”

 

[jmcrae]

The church is not without authority. Protestants believe that the institutional church does have authority but that it is subject to the Bible. So we have theological schools, ministers, elders and such but we must constantly be searching the Scriptures as the Bereans did to see if these things are so. Church authorities are not infallible.

This attitude is why when Protestants disagree with their teachers, they just start up a new religion. After all, everyone is equal, and if I’m as good as my teacher, and no more liable to be wrong than he is, then why not? I am no worse off, doctrinally, and I get to keep the collection money.

God has always had someone in authority? Who was it at the time of Jesus?

Uh - it was actually Jesus Himself. (And yes, He was infallible.)

The scribes and the Pharisees? We know how Jesus spoke of them. They did not appear to have lead the people correctly.

And yet, ***Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.***

• Matthew 23:1-3 (King James Version)

Jesus Himself tells us that we are to obey those who are set in authority over us, and if they are hypocrites, then we are to obey their commandments without following their example.

 

[guanophore]

And how do we know that the Church is infallible? By tradition, which is the Church simply saying it is infallible because it says so.

Ah, this is an erroneous conclusion. The Church did not say that about itself, but Jesus said it, and confirmed it by His Holy Spirit.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah, this is an erroneous conclusion. The Church did not say that about itself, but Jesus said it, and confirmed it by His Holy Spirit.

And so it has proven in practice. For 2,000 years now, the Catholic Church has taught a constant and consistent message. In a quarter of that time, Protestantism has fractured, split, quarreled, re-split, and so on.

 

[Dr_M]

The only reason the Bible exists is because someone thought it was smart idea to write down things that were already SPOKEN . If the Bible didn’t exist, the Catholic Faith would still be alive.

 

[seeker44]

At the risk of covering old ground in this forum (I’m a new member), how do I answer this challenge?

We Catholics often defend Tradition, as opposed to sola scriptura, by saying that sola is not stated in the Bible and that such an important “truth” as sola would be presented explicitly in Scripture if it were true.

Sola subscribers usually counter in this way. Nowhere in the Bible do we find formal mention of the very important doctrine of the Trinity. However, we can find clear teaching that there is one God (Exodus 20:1-2; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29), and that there is in essence one God of three distinct persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This is shown in Scripture (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:18-20; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 13:14). Thus, the Bible does clearly teach the Trinity, but it is a logical deduction from the passages we find in the Bible.

“Likewise, it is possible that *sola Scriptura *could be [is] a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” (from Geisler, N. & MacKenzie, R. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals – Agreements and Differences, Baker Books, 1995)

Protestants then list various scriptures from which we are to conclude are proof, from deduction, to the truth of Sola Scriptura.

 

[NotWorthy]

At the risk of covering old ground in this forum (I’m a new member), how do I answer this challenge?

We Catholics often defend Tradition, as opposed to sola scriptura, by saying that sola is not stated in the Bible and that such an important “truth” as sola would be presented explicitly in Scripture if it were true.

Sola subscribers usually counter in this way. Nowhere in the Bible do we find formal mention of the very important doctrine of the Trinity. However, we can find clear teaching that there is one God (Exodus 20:1-2; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29), and that there is in essence one God of three distinct persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This is shown in Scripture (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:18-20; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 13:14). Thus, the Bible does clearly teach the Trinity, but it is a logical deduction from the passages we find in the Bible.

“Likewise, it is possible that *sola Scriptura *could be [is] a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” (from Geisler, N. & MacKenzie, R. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals – Agreements and Differences, Baker Books, 1995)

Protestants then list various scriptures from which we are to conclude are proof, from deduction, to the truth of Sola Scriptura.

How does Jesus say to resolve disputes. “Take it to the Church”. What does St. Paul call the Church? The Pillar and Bulwark fo Truth.

If the Traditions of the Church were not necessary and if the Bible was absolutely necessary, wouldn’t the Bible have been the first thing the Apostles set out to do?

Where do you get the Church has the authority to set Traditions? “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven…”. This was an explicit authority that the Pharisees had in Jesus’ time. The Pharisees, while teaching from the Chair (or is it seat?) of Moses (does that sound familiar?) could make a new Mosaic Law and make in binding on the Faithful Jews. This is the authority that Jesus is passing on to Peter and the Apostles. Notice Jesus says, “All Authority has been given to me from God, Therefore go out…” Jesus has all the authority, and is passing it on to the Apostles.

 

[Dr_M]

At the risk of covering old ground in this forum (I’m a new member), how do I answer this challenge?

We Catholics often defend Tradition, as opposed to sola scriptura, by saying that sola is not stated in the Bible and that such an important “truth” as sola would be presented explicitly in Scripture if it were true.

Sola subscribers usually counter in this way. Nowhere in the Bible do we find formal mention of the very important doctrine of the Trinity. However, we can find clear teaching that there is one God (Exodus 20:1-2; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29), and that there is in essence one God of three distinct persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This is shown in Scripture (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:18-20; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 13:14). Thus, the Bible does clearly teach the Trinity, but it is a logical deduction from the passages we find in the Bible.

“Likewise, it is possible that *sola Scriptura *could be [is] a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” (from Geisler, N. & MacKenzie, R. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals – Agreements and Differences, Baker Books, 1995)

Protestants then list various scriptures from which we are to conclude are proof, from deduction, to the truth of Sola Scriptura.

The problem with sola Scriputra is that the argument runs into a circle. It defeats itself. If it was true, then there’s no point in doing Algebra, or English for that manner, they’re not in the Bible either. It’s a self contridictory thing, the deductive reasoning used by protestants on this issue is incorrect. (I should know, my major’s math, we use it all the time)

 

[NotWorthy]

At the risk of covering old ground in this forum (I’m a new member), how do I answer this challenge?

We Catholics often defend Tradition, as opposed to sola scriptura, by saying that sola is not stated in the Bible and that such an important “truth” as sola would be presented explicitly in Scripture if it were true.

Sola subscribers usually counter in this way. Nowhere in the Bible do we find formal mention of the very important doctrine of the Trinity. However, we can find clear teaching that there is one God (Exodus 20:1-2; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29), and that there is in essence one God of three distinct persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This is shown in Scripture (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:18-20; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 13:14). Thus, the Bible does clearly teach the Trinity, but it is a logical deduction from the passages we find in the Bible.

“Likewise, it is possible that *sola Scriptura *could be [is] a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” (from Geisler, N. & MacKenzie, R. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals – Agreements and Differences, Baker Books, 1995)

Protestants then list various scriptures from which we are to conclude are proof, from deduction, to the truth of Sola Scriptura.

Also, ask them why the Holy Spirit guided Philip (a member of the Church) to interpret Isaiah for the Ethiopian Eunuch, instead of the Holy Spirit simply guiding the Ethiopian.

It may have something to do with what Peter says in his Epistles regarding how easy it is to mis-interpret Paul’s writings - something that has been proven time and time again over the last 500 years.

 

[vern_humphrey]

At the risk of covering old ground in this forum (I’m a new member), how do I answer this challenge?

We Catholics often defend Tradition, as opposed to sola scriptura, by saying that sola is not stated in the Bible and that such an important “truth” as sola would be presented explicitly in Scripture if it were true.

Sola subscribers usually counter in this way. Nowhere in the Bible do we find formal mention of the very important doctrine of the Trinity. However, we can find clear teaching that there is one God (Exodus 20:1-2; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29), and that there is in essence one God of three distinct persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This is shown in Scripture (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:18-20; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 13:14). Thus, the Bible does clearly teach the Trinity, but it is a logical deduction from the passages we find in the Bible.

“Likewise, it is possible that *sola Scriptura *could be [is] a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” (from Geisler, N. & MacKenzie, R. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals – Agreements and Differences, Baker Books, 1995)

Protestants then list various scriptures from which we are to conclude are proof, from deduction, to the truth of Sola Scriptura.

Jesus left nothing in writing. The earliest Christian documents we have are the Epistles of Paul – written more than a generation after the Crucifixion, by a man who never saw the living Christ.

The Church had no New Testament in those crucial early years – nor does the New Testament encompass all. John, himself tells us at the end of his gospel that if everything were written down, “I do not think there would be enough books in the world.”

As Harry Gambel (a protestant professor) points out in his The Canon of the New Testament, It’s Making and Meaning, by the time Christians began to look toward a canonical compilation of Christian scripture, there was a bewildering mass of Christian writing – some of it outright forgeries.

The documents that make up the New Testament were selected based on tradition. They were those which matched what the Church was teaching, and which had been used at Mass. And that means you cannot separate Scripture from Tradition.

Go to the Gospel of Matthew. Find the verse where the author says he is Matthew the Apostle. You can’t.

So how do we know the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew? Tradition!

How do we know Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? Tradition!

How do we know Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke? Tradition!

How do we know the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John? Tradition!

 

[justasking4]

Careful. That Church gave you your Bible…You’re welcome

Oh wait, it fell from the sky leather bound. What?? Someone had to discern which 27 out of the 110 apostolic writings were inspired?? Gee, who could those people be?? Not an infallible Church?? Was it left behind by Jesus Himself?? HMMMM…So much to ponder…

Are you saying the catholic made the Scriptures inspired-inerrant?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you saying the catholic made the Scriptures inspired-inerrant?

The Catholic Church discerned which of the many Christian and pseudo-Christian documents that existed in the late 4th Century were inspired and inerrant and Pope Damasus proclaimed the Canon of Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

Jesus left nothing in writing. The earliest Christian documents we have are the Epistles of Paul – written more than a generation after the Crucifixion, by a man who never saw the living Christ.

The Church had no New Testament in those crucial early years – nor does the New Testament encompass all. John, himself tells us at the end of his gospel that if everything were written down, “I do not think there would be enough books in the world.”

As Harry Gambel (a protestant professor) points out in his The Canon of the New Testament, It’s Making and Meaning, by the time Christians began to look toward a canonical compilation of Christian scripture, there was a bewildering mass of Christian writing – some of it outright forgeries.

The documents that make up the New Testament were selected based on tradition

Even though the church did use various means to determine who wrote them that knowledge in and of itself does not make the NT inspired nor does it count against sola scriptura.
Just because a “tradition” about something may have been used to help to determine who wrote a particular book does not mean all traditions of the catholic church are right and sola scriptura is false.

The case for the inspiration-imerrancy of the Scriptures is well established. Both catholics and protestants accept this for the most part. What catholics need to show is that their “traditions” are on the same level as the Scriptures. That has yet to be shown. In fact i personally have yet to see a list of all the traditons of the catholic church. I wonder if such a list exists.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually it was more than this. For a book to be included in the NT canon it had to have some kind of apostlolic backing.

That’s called “Tradition.”

Even though the church did use various means to determine who wrote them that knowledge in and of itself does not make the NT inspired nor does it count against sola scriptura.

Then prove the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew from Sola Scriptura.

Just because a “tradition” about something may have been used to help to determine who wrote a particular book does not mean all traditions of the catholic church are right and sola scriptura is false.

Actually, it does. And anyone who uses the New Testament is relying on Catholic Tradition.

The case for the inspiration-imerrancy of the Scriptures is well established. Both catholics and protestants accept this for the most part.

It was established through Tradition. And more than a thousand years before there was such a thing as a Protestant.

What catholics need to show is that their “traditions” are on the same level as the Scriptures. That has yet to be shown.

It is shown very handily by the fact that the Canon was established based on Tradition.

In fact i personally have yet to see a list of all the traditons of the catholic church. I wonder if such a list exists.

Go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read the Index of Citations.

 

[Hellisreal]

All protestants have traditions too.

 

[NotWorthy]

All protestants have traditions too.

But do they all share the same Traditions as Catholics do? Hmmmmmm… which groups traditions would more than likely be traditions of men…

 

[Hellisreal]

But do they all share the same Traditions as Catholics do? Hmmmmmm… which groups traditions would more than likely be traditions of men…

I think we are reading each other’s minds here…

 

[vern_humphrey]

But do they all share the same Traditions as Catholics do? Hmmmmmm… which groups traditions would more than likely be traditions of men…

Catholic Tradition is handed down from the Apostles, and comes to us through the writings of those later Catholics who were raised in one Apostolic tradition or another.

There is no “new” Tradition.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think we are reading each other’s minds here…

I’d be scared if I was you. Very Scared… but, you probably already know that!!!