What does scripture say about traditions?

[saribee]

I am reading this article on how to refute the protestant idea of sola scriptura: archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

Under number three, it says this:

1. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

What scripture passages can be used to prove that the bold portion of this is true? What does the Bible say about true, apostolic tradition being a good thing?

 

[Cat_Herder]

First of all… realize that ALL Christians have traditions. There is no such thing as “Bible alone” Christianity. Examples of such traditions include the table of contents of the Bible, as well as which source text (Masoretic? Septuagint?) and what translation is authoritative (NIV? KJV? NASB?), as well as church buildings, which the Bible states the Apostles did not use (Acts 2:46) and which cannot be justified from the Bible alone.

To this list we can add all of the doctrines of many Evangelical/Protestant/non-denominational churches which clearly contradict Scripture. For example, contraception (Gen 38:9-10), abortion (Lev 18:21), divorce (Mal 2:16), female pastors (1 Cor 14:34-35), failure to fast (Acts 13:3), failure to call the Blessed Virgin Mary either blessed or virgin (Luke 1:48, Ezekiel 44:2, see explanation here), the Rapture, and on and on and on. So do not allow a non-Catholic to claim a “we go by the Bible alone” position when no such thing exists.

Now, with that background, look at how tradition is viewed in the New Testament. There is both a negative view:
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 7:9[/BIBLEDRB]
And a positive view:
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14-16[/BIBLEDRB]

Therefore the question is not WHETHER there is tradition but rather WHERE the traditions came from. The Pharisees, who Jesus condemned, had erroneous traditions. On the other hand, the Apostles have correct traditions which are to be followed.

So the question then turns to whether everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught was committed to Scripture. The answer is no:
[BIBLEDRB]Jn 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]
Although 2 Tim 3:16 is often cited by Protestants to prove that everything that is necessary to salvation is in the Bible, the answer to that is also no.

For further reading, here is a blow-by-blow list of common attacks on Catholic practices as being “bad tradition,” when in fact all are biblical.

 

[saribee]

WOW Thank you so much! I grew up protestant and am now becoming Catholic. Thanks for helping me get more information for me to be able to articulate what I believe and share with my family when they inevitably ask questions like these.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I am reading this article on how to refute the protestant idea of sola scriptura: archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

Under number three, it says this:

What scripture passages can be used to prove that the bold portion of this is true? What does the Bible say about true, apostolic tradition being a good thing?

I do not go that way.
Tell you. The most ridiculous thing of the “Sola Scriptura” is that the Sola Scriptura=Sola Tradition.
The Sola-Scripture is Sola-Tradition. If Jesus Christ did not write anything, Scripture is tradition and only tradition.
How come Protestants say Scripture-Yes Tradition-No puzzles me.
If Christ had written the Gospels Himself, then Sola Scriptura made some sense. But the guys who wrote it wrote because they had heard someone say that he heard someone say that the Community said that Jesus Said.
I have not seen any explanation for this and I am in a Protestant Forum. Before I know the Protestant position on this, I refuse to discuss little details. The big picture is that Scriptures are Traditions of the Community. How can Protestant refuse that?
The only explanation for me is that Reformation was more about other problems (money, politics, Henry VIII’s marriage, and so on ) and very little about Bible Problems.

 

[po18guy]

Oral tradition was huge in ancient Israel, due to low literacy rates and other factors. Because of the oral tradition, at least two things are mentioned in the New Testament that appear nowhere in the Old Testament. Paul wrote, in** 2 Timothy 3:8-9**, of “Jannes and Jambres, who opposed Moses”. Their names and their actions appear nowhere in the Old Testament. The only reason that we know of this incident is because it was preserved for 1,250 years via the oral tradition before Paul wrote of it. Also, the Epistle of Jude (Jude 1:9) mentions Saint Michael the Archangel disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. This incident also appears nowhere in the Old Testament, and was “handed on” (the definition of tradition) down through the generations. I know of no part of scripture that was recorded exactly when it occurred.

Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul also praises the Corinthians for holding to the tradtions as he delivered them to him. As well, the prologue of Luke identifies the oral Apostolic Tradition as the source of Theolphilus’ instruction, as he had already been thoroughly taught in the manner of the Apostolic Tradition. Note that Luke, in written form, added nothing to the instruction that Theophilus had already received. As well, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to “remind you of all that I have said” (John 14:26). No writing. Only Jesus’ teaching and the Holy Spirit as the foundation of the Apostolic Tradition.