V
Vic2
Guest
A Fundamentalist says Gal. 3:8 shows that Abraham was taught about the faith by Scripture in order to prove Sola Scriptura. What is the Catholic understanding of the meaning of Scripture in this verse?
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”** 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Ask the Fundamentalist…How many in Abraham’s time knew how to write? Much, less how to read?
Without printing press and paper, how could a writing be distributed…and how many could read and write?
Gospel, used here, does not refer to the written gospels…gospel means good news…the good news of salvation…and notice this part…and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham:…means it was verbally spoken to him.**
M
MrsFlapjack
Guest
My gut reaction is this. Since Abraham came before Moses, no Sacred Scripture had been written yet. No books of the Bible existed in Abraham’s time. It just doesn’t make sense to me how that verse proves Sola Scriptura.
B
brgregmack
Guest
On the surface, I can see where the Fundamentalist gets this interpretation, for at first glance it would seem to say that Abraham was given scripture.
Yet this is another instance of taking a verse out of context and grossly misinterpreting it. When it says “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,” simply refers to the story of Abraham as related by scripture.:twocents:
Yet this is another instance of taking a verse out of context and grossly misinterpreting it. When it says “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,” simply refers to the story of Abraham as related by scripture.:twocents:
po18guy
Well-known member
Let’s listen to an even greater authority than Abraham - Jesus Himself: “Man lives not on bread alone, but on every word that issues from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4 quoting Deuteronomy 8:3). Yet, the bible tells us in many places that it does not contain every word of God (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Colossians 4:7-9 and many others).
Now what?
Now what?
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
And on the seventh day, the KJV fell out of the sky, and God saw that it was good.
S
Southwell
Guest
This is why scripture itself says no scripture is for private inturpratatiom. The very statement that Abraham had access to the bible demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of scripture incredible in one who holds to sola scriptura!!!
Any fundamentalist worthy of the name knows that Moses wrote the first five books of our bible. Many believe Job was earlier but it doesn’t address the abrahamic covenant and at Abraham’s day Job would still have been oral tradition not scripture!!
Having been a fundy b4 my conversion, I’m embarrassed. If this is the best the current crop of fundamentalists can muster - well they should all be Catholic by next week and CA would be out of business - hope this helps, AMDG
C
Cachonga
Guest
I’d like to know how Abraham was taught from the Scriptures before they were written. Of course, God told him that all nations would be blessed in him, and this is recorded for us in Scripture, but no Scriptures were not written when Abraham was alive (as far as I know). I’m not sure when Job was written, but other than that, the writing of Scripture was begun by Moses. If I’m wrong, I would invite correction.
A
Actaeon
Guest
Since there was NO scripture at the time that Abraham lived, her certainly did NOT learn about the faith through scripture. Your protestant friend is conflating two statements:
- that scripture predicted the gentiles would be saved in faith
- that Abraham received the Gospel early.
In fact, you might say that this verse clearly points out that sola scriptura is NOT accurate, because Abraham received a message of the Gospel without any scripture at all.
N
Nita
Guest
I’m thinking that the Fundamentalist might have gotten the wrong “Sola”!!
Gal. 3:6-8 is more likely to be cited by Fundamentalists as support for “Faith alone” (Sola Fide).
B
brgregmack
Guest
good point!!! I just noticed that!!!
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Genesis 12:3 and similar Old Testament passages, such as Genesis 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; etc.
G
Gorgias
Guest
On the other hand, although Scripture hadn’t yet been written, the Word of God pre-existed any humans.
C
Cachonga
Guest
Sure. You have to have Scriptures in order to have Sola Scriptura. Didn’t we have God speaking to us (through His prophets and apostles) when Scriptures were being written? On the other hand, when John (the last of the Apostles) passed away, how did God communicate with His people? Where is His voice today? Oh, right - the Church. I fully agree, but the Church HOLDS UP the truth, it is NOT the truth itself (and I don’t find it to be infallible in any sense of the word since the Apostles left). I know we both agree that God’s Word is true and should be obeyed, but you consider tradition to also be a part of God’s Word (plus you accept the Deuterocanonical books to be Scripture as well). I can find where Scripture tells us it is “God breathed”, but I can’t find anywhere that the same thing is said of anything else, including tradition
G
Gorgias
Guest
You’ve raised two issues there. First, ‘tradition’ isn’t ‘God’s Word’, strictly speaking – God’s Word is the Scriptures. (However, Tradition is the transmission (through preaching, etc) of the Word of God.) However, Divine Revelation is to be found in both Scripture and Tradition. Let me ask you a question: is the Jewish dietary law something that Christians don’t follow because Peter said it was so, or is it because it’s written in the Bible? (It seems like a silly question, since the answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes’, but it’s important to make the distinction. Is the removal of the prohibition something that came about on Peter’s authority, or only upon the authority of Scripture (when it was written down, years later)?) Clearly, the answer has to be that it’s Peter’s authority – after all, Acts 11:18 shows that Christians believed in it straight from Peter’s mouth, without waiting to be able to read it in Scripture! Therefore, we can clearly see that God’s Revelation is to be found through the decrees of the Apostles (as Jesus himself ordered, in Mt 16:19, Mt 18:18).
To your second point: who has the authority to proclaim what books are Scriptural, and what books aren’t? Should it be the Church, whose leaders are the successors of the Apostles? Or should it be any person who feels that they should change the Canon of Scripture?
Why, from these very quotes! (Mt 16:19, 18:18) – The apostles, led by Peter, were given authority by Jesus! The command was, in its most literal sense, “God breathed”!
In any case, we need to be sure that we’re on the same page. When you say ‘tradition’, what is it that you are talking about? That is, how do you define ‘tradition’? From the catechism: “‘Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.’ ‘And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.’” So… the Word of God is the speech of God, as found in Scripture. When the revelation of God is found in preaching (after all, isn’t that what Jesus told the apostles to do? Preach his Word?), it’s called Tradition. Are you saying we should disregard Jesus’ Word? Or take lightly Jesus’ commission to the apostles to preach it? Or perhaps you have a citation that demonstrates that we were meant to hear the Word in preaching until the Bible was written, and from that point on, we were meant only to read the Word? (Paul doesn’t seem to think so – “faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17 … written before the Gospels were themselves written!)
po18guy
Well-known member
Small point here: A tiny portion of God’s word exists in writing. God’s word is infinite and cannot be contained in anything man-made, such as writing. It is a living word that must be taught by living authority. Every human that has ever lived could have written God’s word incessantly during their lives and the entire collection would remain an immeasurably tiny percentage of His word. Since man lives on every word that issues from the *mouth *of God (not from the hand of God) it must be interpreted and spoken by those whom He chose and sent. Jesus never said that man lives by every word that is written - He said only that the portion that was written could not be broken.
The primary error of sola scriptura is that it stems from a rejection of the authoritative Church that Christ founded - the Church which predates the New Testament and which produiced and tested the New Testament scriptures. How can this be justified, since Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail? Was Jesus deceiving us? Was He wrong?
I freely admit that accepting only a tiny portion of God’s word and interpreting it to our saifaction is far easier to accept than the totality of God’s word. But, is it God’s will for us to do this? Clearly not.
C
Cachonga
Guest
Gorgias,
I detect a bit of confusion here (not uncommon in these discussions). Obviously, Peter, as an Apostle, was able to speak with Christ’s authority (as did John, James and even Paul). As I pointed out, you have to hae Scriptures in order for Sola Scriptura to operate. This means that Sola Scriptura does NOT operate during times when Scripture is being written (like when the Apostles walked the Earth).
The question to ask today is simple – where can I find the sure words of Christ and the Apostles? Since the Catholic Church (to the best of my knowledge) has never “infallibly” defined a single word or phrase of Jesus or the Apostles that is not found within the pages of Scripture, it would appear that this is where we need to look today (unless, maybe, you know where we can find an eye-witness). Add to that the testimony of Scripture for itself (“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” 2 Tim 3:16 NASB). How come this isn’t said of tradition? Of course, I do acknowledge that the Church has authority to teach, but since there are no more Apostles giving new revelation, what should the Church be teaching from? Hey, even the Catholic Church reads and explains Scriptures at mass.
To be sure there was an oral tradition, but the NT was written while many eye-witnesses were still alive. Even Peter refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture, and Paul notes that traditions were being taught orally AND in writing (2 Thes 2:15). I’ve often heard it argued that Paul is indicating that both Scripture and Tradition are to be followed, but a close examination of the verse shows that Paul used a whether/or construct. To me, this means that the same tradition was passed on in two ways – orally and in writing. Just because there was no formal “book” does not mean the Scriptures were unavailable to the Church until some council declared what books were Scripture (copies of the writings of the Apostles were abundant throughout the Church, which is one reason they survived the persecutions (which included the burning of Scriptures), and gives us a good deal to look at and accept the reliability of the NT the way we do).
BTW – I won’t address the canon other than to say that I believe God, through the Holy Spirit, led fallible Christian leaders to recognize His Scriptures from other works. I consider the canon to be a seperate issue, and, therefore, not on topic.
As far as what I consider “tradition”, obviously there is the tradition that was written down in the Scriptures. To be sure there were other traditions, but I would expect God to give us the important things in writing (to ensure they are passed along without a great deal of error or deviation). Traditions not written down (I believe Irenaeus mentioned things like which way we should face when we pray), I wouldn’t think are vital to us today (certainly not something to make dogmas out of). Now before you accuse me of disregarding the words of Jesus to His Disciples, let me again ask – has the Catholic Church ever, infallibly, defined a single word or phrase from Jesus or any of the Apostles that we do not have recorded in Scripture? If they have, please give us the details. If not, then for me that is further confirmation that Paul (and other Apostles) DID write down the oral traditions that God wanted to pass on to us.
I detect a bit of confusion here (not uncommon in these discussions). Obviously, Peter, as an Apostle, was able to speak with Christ’s authority (as did John, James and even Paul). As I pointed out, you have to hae Scriptures in order for Sola Scriptura to operate. This means that Sola Scriptura does NOT operate during times when Scripture is being written (like when the Apostles walked the Earth).
The question to ask today is simple – where can I find the sure words of Christ and the Apostles? Since the Catholic Church (to the best of my knowledge) has never “infallibly” defined a single word or phrase of Jesus or the Apostles that is not found within the pages of Scripture, it would appear that this is where we need to look today (unless, maybe, you know where we can find an eye-witness). Add to that the testimony of Scripture for itself (“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” 2 Tim 3:16 NASB). How come this isn’t said of tradition? Of course, I do acknowledge that the Church has authority to teach, but since there are no more Apostles giving new revelation, what should the Church be teaching from? Hey, even the Catholic Church reads and explains Scriptures at mass.
To be sure there was an oral tradition, but the NT was written while many eye-witnesses were still alive. Even Peter refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture, and Paul notes that traditions were being taught orally AND in writing (2 Thes 2:15). I’ve often heard it argued that Paul is indicating that both Scripture and Tradition are to be followed, but a close examination of the verse shows that Paul used a whether/or construct. To me, this means that the same tradition was passed on in two ways – orally and in writing. Just because there was no formal “book” does not mean the Scriptures were unavailable to the Church until some council declared what books were Scripture (copies of the writings of the Apostles were abundant throughout the Church, which is one reason they survived the persecutions (which included the burning of Scriptures), and gives us a good deal to look at and accept the reliability of the NT the way we do).
BTW – I won’t address the canon other than to say that I believe God, through the Holy Spirit, led fallible Christian leaders to recognize His Scriptures from other works. I consider the canon to be a seperate issue, and, therefore, not on topic.
As far as what I consider “tradition”, obviously there is the tradition that was written down in the Scriptures. To be sure there were other traditions, but I would expect God to give us the important things in writing (to ensure they are passed along without a great deal of error or deviation). Traditions not written down (I believe Irenaeus mentioned things like which way we should face when we pray), I wouldn’t think are vital to us today (certainly not something to make dogmas out of). Now before you accuse me of disregarding the words of Jesus to His Disciples, let me again ask – has the Catholic Church ever, infallibly, defined a single word or phrase from Jesus or any of the Apostles that we do not have recorded in Scripture? If they have, please give us the details. If not, then for me that is further confirmation that Paul (and other Apostles) DID write down the oral traditions that God wanted to pass on to us.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Pretty much everybody is sure that Jesus told us to “Be good bankers,” because it was so widely quoted by early Christians.
Yet that’s not in the Bible. Why? Didn’t fit the literary needs of any of the four Gospels, never fit into any of the Epistles, didn’t come into Revelation.
God said it, I believe it, and it’s part of tradition when I need it.
The Sign of the Cross has scriptural foreshadowings in the OT, and no early Christian in the world didn’t cross himself. But it wasn’t in the Gospel or the Epistles. (You can argue it’s in Revelation, depending.)
More to the point, the Sign of the Cross was one of the prime early Christian examples for explaining Sacred Tradition.
Yet that’s not in the Bible. Why? Didn’t fit the literary needs of any of the four Gospels, never fit into any of the Epistles, didn’t come into Revelation.
God said it, I believe it, and it’s part of tradition when I need it.
The Sign of the Cross has scriptural foreshadowings in the OT, and no early Christian in the world didn’t cross himself. But it wasn’t in the Gospel or the Epistles. (You can argue it’s in Revelation, depending.)
More to the point, the Sign of the Cross was one of the prime early Christian examples for explaining Sacred Tradition.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… so, Christ tells the Apostles that they have authority. But, he doesn’t say anything to anyone about writing a book that will have authority when the Apostles are dead. Yet, ‘sola scriptura’ is understood to operate once Scripture is written, without any mandate from Christ, and in seeming contravention to the mandate that Christ actually gives the Apostles?
Paul tells you: in the preaching of those who have been sent. Who has been sent? The Apostles. What did they teach? That those who succeeded them carry on their ministry and the mandate of Christ.
Really? That’s what you’re going with? To summarize: Apostolic teaching is mandated by Christ; this teaching authority dictates that some of what’s been written about Christ is to be held as Scripture; the teaching and the Scripture stand together; so throw away the authority and go only with Scripture. Seriously?
Tradition means nothing more than the teaching of those authorized by Christ to teach (and, as it turns out, these who were authorized, in turn, passed on their authority to their successors). The authorization (by Christ directly, and verbatim) is found in Scripture.
Yep… it goes to the heart of the question of ‘authority’, now, doesn’t it?
And that’s not what Catholics mean, when they speak of Tradition.Let’s go with two examples – one, somewhat mischievous:
First, is the Eucharist truly the Body and Blood of Christ? (You can see the implications, right? If it isn’t (in your opinion), then the Church has made an infallible declaration that’s not (explicitly (?)) in Scripture, and therefore, the answer to your question is ‘yes’ – and therefore, your argument that Tradition is only a pale echo of Scripture fails. If it is, and your argument holds, then Christians who disbelieve the True Presence are in violation of Scriptural words of Jesus.)
Second, let’s talk about Mary: the Church has declared her conception ‘immaculate’. Same dilemma here as in the previous example, however. If the answer is ‘outside of Scripture’, then Tradition stands on its own two feet, corroborated by Scripture but not exclusively beholden to it; if the answer is ‘within Scripture’ (in particular, I’m thinking about κεχαριτωμένη and its theological implications), then non-Catholic Christians who don’t hold Mary in such high regard have a problem).
Nevertheless, you’re providing me with an intractable situation: you want me to show either that all Tradition is within Scripture (and therefore, not necessary), or that it’s extra-Scriptural (at which point you’ll assert that it’s invalid, since not in Scripture, n’est-ce pas?).
Blessings,
G.
C
Cachonga
Guest
Sorry for the delay. I’ve been out of town (and will be again early next week for some tests).
Mintaka:
Sorry, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that. Is this something that has been defined as being said by Jesus by the “infallible” magisterium of the church?
How do you know God said it if it’s not in Scripture? You say it’s in tradition, but how do you know it’s not a tradition of man? How can you determine what kind of tradition this is?
To be sure there were foreshadowing’s of the cross in the OT. That doesn’t necessarily translate to the “sign of the cross” (as in crossing yourself). I don’t believe anybody did that until after Jesus went back to Heaven (not sure how log after, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it started about the same time as the first persecutions, but that’s just an opinion).
Could you give an example, or is this just a groundless declaration you hope will remain unchallenged?
- Status