Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 1)
May 14th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
The tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion. The world is filled with religions that have been following set traditions for hundreds—even thousands—of years. Cultures come and go, but religious tradition shows an amazing continuity.
In fact, many ancient religions—including Druidism, Native American religions, and several of the oriental cults—eschewed written records of their faith, preferring to pass down their legends and rituals and dogmas via word-of-mouth. Such religions usually treat their body of traditions as a de facto authority equal to other religions’ sacred writings.
Even among the world’s religions that revere sacred writings, however, tradition and scripture are often blended. This is true in Hinduism, for example, where the ancient Vedas are the Scriptures, and traditions handed down by gurus round out the faith of most followers. Tradition in effect becomes a lens through which the written word is interpreted. Tradition therefore stands as the highest of all authorities, because it renders the only authoritative interpretation of the sacred writings.
This tendency to view tradition as supreme authority is not unique to pagan religions. Traditional Judaism, for example, follows the Scripture-plus-tradition paradigm. The familiar books of the Old Testament alone are viewed as Scripture, but true orthodoxy is actually defined by a collection of ancient rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud. In effect, the traditions of the Talmud carry an authority equal to or greater than that of the inspired Scriptures.
Teaching as Doctrines the Precepts of Men
This is no recent development within Judaism. The Jews of Jesus’ day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.
Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:
“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (Mk. 7:6-13).
It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters: ”You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).
They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of “authority”: “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32).
So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exod. 34:27), and that written record of God’s Word became the basis for God’s covenant with the nation (Exod. 24:4,7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses’ successor, Joshua:
Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it (Josh. 1:7-8).
Of course, other books of inspired Scripture beside those written by Moses were later added to the Jewish canon—but this was a prerogative reserved by God alone. Sola Scriptura was therefore established in principle with the giving of the law. No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly innovation was to be accorded authority equal to the revealed Word of God as recorded in Scripture.
Solomon understood this principle: “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6).
The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20, KJV).
In short, tradition had no legitimate place of authority in the worship of Jehovah.
Everything was to be tested by the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. That’s why Jesus’ rebuke to the scribes and Pharisees was so harsh. Their very faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a serious transgression of the covenant and commandments of God (cf. Matt. 15:3).
The Rise and Ruin of Catholic Tradition
Unfortunately, Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself.
How did this happen? The earliest Church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition. Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities. The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly. The authority was in the appeal to Scripture, not in the councils per se.
Unfortunately, the question of Scriptural authority itself was not always clearly delineated in the early church, and as the church grew in power and influence, church leaders began to assert an authority that had no basis in Scripture. The church as an institution became in many people’s eyes the fountain of authority and the arbiter on all matters of truth. Appeals began to be made more often to tradition than to Scripture. As a result, extrabiblical doctrines were canonized and a body of truth that found no support in Scripture began to be asserted as infallibly true.
Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition.
Officially, the Catholic Church is very straightforward about her blending of Scripture and tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC 82, emphasis added).
Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much “the Word of God” as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal” (CCC 80). The “sacred deposit of faith”—this admixture of Scripture and tradition—was supposedly entrusted by the apostles to their successors (CCC 84), and “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. . . . This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (CCC 85).
The Catechism is quick to deny that this makes the Church’s teaching authority (called the magisterium) in any way superior to the Word of God itself (CCC 86). But it then goes on to warn the faithful that they must “read the Scripture within ‘the living tradition of the whole Church’” (CCC 113). The Catechism at this point quotes “a saying of the Fathers[:] Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word” (CCC 113).
So in effect, tradition is not only made equal to Scripture; but it becomes the true Scripture, written not in documents, but mystically within the Church herself. And when the Church speaks, Her voice is heard as if it were the voice of God, giving the only true meaning to the words of the “documents and records.” Thus tradition utterly supplants and supersedes Scripture.
(To be continued tomorrow)
In this discussion 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. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: “So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’” Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word “tradition” in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a “tradition” is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
What does scripture say about “Tradition”?
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
What do the early church fathers say about “Tradition”?:
Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
…
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Athanasius
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Chrysostom
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
Vincent of Lerins
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
In summary, you can see from this and many previous posts that I have documented the Catholic position from not only scripture, but ALSO from the early church fathers. Some of you mention the early fathers, but are not able to find your own “teachings” contained in their writings? So I ask you in all sincerity and charity, who or what body is following “the traditions of men”?
God bless..
Gerry,
You have provided a lengthy quote here. Allow me to make just a brief comment in response.
When it comes to this issue of tradition, I think the primary difference between Catholics and Protestants is the level of authority that is given to tradition. As a Protestant, I appreciate the church fathers (in fact I am studying them for my doctoral work.) But I do not consider them infallible guides for faith and practice.
At stake here, then, is the issue of authority. Is the Bible our ultimate authority, or is the church our ultimate authority? According to Rome, the church is the ultimate authority, not only because it transmits infallible tradition, but also because it is the only true interpreter of Scripture. Thus the Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “As regards Biblical interpretation properly so called the Church is infallible in the sense that, whether by authentic decision of pope or council, or by its current teaching that a given passage of Scripture has a certain meaning, this meaning must be regarded as the true sense of the passage in question.”
Protestants are not convinced. Not only do Protestants believe that much of Roman Catholic teaching goes contrary to a plain interpretation of Scripture, but it also contradicts itself in places. It is interesting, again, to note the significant differences between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox church – both of which claim to hold to the same infallible tradition. A study of the proclamations made by past popes and councils which later popes and councils have undone or significantly mitigated, is also interesting in this regard.
More might be said, as well, about the significant doctrinal differences that characterized the orthodox church fathers (for instance, you cited Origen who was later anathematized by Rome as a heretic); or about the differences between patristic theology and contemporary Roman Catholic theology. James White recently posted a short but helpful article on the myth of the “Patristic Consensus.”
Well, that’s all I have time for at the moment. Thank you again for your comment.
- NB
William Webwter’s article “Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say) is a good article. The Repudiation of the Patristic Concep;t of Tradition is a great help on Patristic concept alone with some other articles.
It seems that the early Church’s approach to dogma was sola Scriptura in which the early fathers viewed Scripture as both materially and formally sufficient. It seems that those early fathers, from Peter, Paul and those that followed in those early years believed the only sourse of doctrine and truth and the ultimate authority in all doctrinal controversies was the Scriptures only.
Scripture alone is the rule of faith (sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei).
Those early preachers from the beginning taught clearly that Scripture was the essesntial truths. And by the enabelement of the Holy Spirit alone to an individual could come to an undersanding of the fundamental truths of salvation. There were no other means whereby a person needed to come to salvation other than by the aid of the Holy Spirit and the truth of Scripture.
Some where alone the way, in order to promote themselves, and their thinking they begin to move away from the essential truth of Scripture and turn to others to give them a stand for what they were preaching. And some where in time, they tried to make what someone else said to be on the same ground as Scripture.
But at one time the only sourse of truth was Scripture alone.
Charles
Nate,
Thanks for your reply, but I have still not received an answer to my challenge from 5/8 to show me where Protestant theology existed before the 1500’s (sola fide, sola scriptura for instance). Since you are studying the fathers in detail, I’m sure that if those tenents of your theology existed that you can show some history behind it as I have. I have tried to be gracious and answer your countless objections to the Catholic Church, which I believe that I have done, but would ask for the same respect in return.
As far as Origen being condemned as a heretic that is up for debate and by no means clear cut..
I do not consider the early church fathers “infallible guides for faith and practice” either, but what they do show is consistent teaching and beliefs in doctorine and practice of The Catholic Church.
I also did not receive a response from you concerning my e-mail on the almost identical theology of The Eastern Orthodox Church and The Catholic Church.
I would hope that the dialogue would be a two way street.
God bless..
Nate B.,
I recognize the ecclisiology and the view of tradition by the RCC is indeed problematic. BUT, don’t you see the view on interpretive tradition within Protestantism even more problematic, since we don’t even recognize that we have tradition? At least the RCC “recognize” that. Dipsensationalism is an interpretive tradition, Covenant theology is an interpretive tradition, Calvinism is an interpretive tradition, Arminianism is an interpretive tradition, etc., etc. John Mac. doesn’t seem to mention that in his article, why?
Gerry,
Thanks for your reply. I have to run to lunch, but I quickly found a few articles that will have to serve as my initial response.
Overview (here)
Sola Scriptura (here and here)
Sola Fide (here, here, and here)
As to the Roman Use of Tradition: (here)
If you would like me to list out specific quotes from among these lists, I am happy to do so.
- NB
In Mark ch 7 Jesus confronted the Jewish leaders for setting aside the commandments of God in order to keep traditions. The example that Jesus used was instead of taking care of one’s elderly parents, using that money instead to “give to God.” Tradition is not the bad word that many make it out to be. Jesus wasn’t against all of Jewish traditions. He was Jewish and kept Jewish traditions.
God instituted priests to be the teachers of the Law.
“For many days Israel was without the true God and without a teaching priest and without law.” 2 Chronicles 15:3
“For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” Malachi 2:7
and Jesus said: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Matthew 23:2-3
People today are quick to point out the hypocrisy of some priests in the Catholic Church. However, if Jesus stripped took back His authority from those who sat in the seat of Moses and gave it to Peter and his successors, then it follows that we should be obedient to those who hold true authority via apostolic succession. The issue at hand here is authority.
Sola Scriptura is a tradition started in the Reformation that inevitably ends in anarchy with each person interpreting Scripture for himself or choosing someone to interpret for them. Either way, each individual makes a choice for himself and thus goes solo on the issue of authority. Sola Scriptura is not a Biblical principle founded on the Bible. The Bible calls the Church, the household of God, the pillar and foundation of truth. and since there is only one truth, then there can only be one church. If there is only one church, then there shouldn’t be so many contradictory interpretations.
Jesus did not pass out copies of Scripture for each person to read for himself. Jesus entrusted His authority to men. Sola Scriptura had no place in the early church. If it did, how would the apostles and elders have arrived at a decision regarding circumcision that seemingly went against the written Scriptures that they had at the time? We have no record of Jesus instructing the apostles on this issue. I can only imagine that the Pharisees at the time thought the apostles were heretics that were going against Scripture.
The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time were very into the Scriptures. Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” John 5:39-40 The Scriptures are a testament to Jesus but Scripture study alone will not give one eternal life. Eternal Life comes through obedience to His commandments.
“…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17
still don’t believe me…check out Matthew 25 and see who receives eternal life and who receives eternal punishment. and I would be remiss if I failed to mention John 6:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.”
REAL food and drink, not symbolic. This IS my body, not this “represents” my body. Call this tradition if you will but it comes straight from the Gospel and the Catholic Church has faithfully upheld this tradition because Jesus commanded them at the Last Supper to DO this. He charged Peter with shepherding His flock and feeding His sheep.
The apostles were given the responsibility of teaching the law and building the church. Jesus gave them authority to make decrees for the church. It was not the Bible alone that was to lead and guide His people. The apostles and elders (appointed by the apostles) made decrees for the whole church for there is only ONE church. Those decrees were delivered to the different towns for the people to obey. “As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.” Acts 16:4 and as Paul said, “hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” He didn’t say only hold to that which is written in Scripture. In Acts 15, the apostles and elders spoke with the authority entrusted to them, and their decision regarding circumcision was not based on sola Scriptura.
Yes, the tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion. What you fail to acknowledge is that sola Scriptura is a tradition. Can you show me in Scripture where God’s people were led by sola Scriptura?
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Thus says the LORD,
“Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; and you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’And I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not listen.’ Jeremiah 6:16-17
I can’t believe such a clear-cut issue warrants ANY discussion. Doctrines of men are condemned in scripture, period.
Bobby,
The difference between the dispensationalist’s use of history and the RCC use of history is precisely in the recognition of it. As good, non-denominational, Baptist, protestants, we freely confess that our history affects and shapes us. But it does not do so authoritatively. And when our history is shown to conflict with scripture we should make haste to reject it.
We embrace tradition in preferences (worship order, song style, etc.). But in issue of truth, we may find tradition a helpful servant of Scripture, not the other way around.
The Catholic, on the other hand, sees the tradition as authoritative, and ses it as the guide to Scripture, not the other way around. That is the main difference.
Thanks,
Jesse
Nate,
Your overview link does not prove the “ALONE” part of either “scripture alone” or “faith alone” It speaks of the importance of scripture and faith which I obviously have no issue at all with. What I have to chuckle about even now as I am writing this is that the bishops you quote from were Catholic Bishops and one (Clement) was a Pope..I have added some other quotes from some of the fathers that are quoted about The Catholic Church..
Ambrose – (340-397) bishop of Milan, famous for his commentaries on Paul’s epistles and for baptizing St. Augustine.
Athanasius – (c. 296-373) bishop of Alexandria from 328, opponent to Arianism and staunch defender of Nicene Orthodoxy
Augustine – (354-430) bishop of Hippo from 396, most influential theologian of the Western Church. Opponent of Pelagius and known therefore as the Doctor of Grace.
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
“We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
Basil – (c. 330-379) bishop of Caeserea from 370, opponent of Arianism. One of the Cappadocian fathers.
Chrysostom – (c. 347-407) Bishop of Antioch, Patriarch of Constantinople. Prolific writer and famous interpreter of the Scriptures. His name means “golden mouthed” from his fine oratory.
Clement of Rome – (flourished c. 96 A.D.) Bishop of Rome (Pope) shortly after the Apostles
Cyril of Jerusalem – (c. 315-386) Bishop of Jerusalem. Famous for his catechetical lectures and for his attendance at the Council of Constantinople where the Nicene Creed was completed.
“[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).
“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” (ibid., 18:26).
Gregory of Nyssa – (c. 330-395) Greek bishop of Nyssa, and brother of Basil.
Irenaeus – (c. 130-c. 200) Bishop of Lyon, early Christian apologist and disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John.
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Time to eat…I’ll be back.
Jesse,
I am a “good ol’ boy” Baptist myself
, thank you for your response. I recognize the “party line response”, I mean no disrespect here, but my question has to do with the fact that many of us Evangelicals (Baptists) don’t even recognize that say, dispensationalism, is an interpretive “tradition”; the consequence is that we imbue “tradition” with the same “authority” as the Roman Catholics, and it is no longer subsidiary authority, but it is magesterial authority–relative to our interpretation of the scriptures. This, in my view, is what leads to sectarianism within Protestantism–viz. failure to recognize our “own” tradition. Thus when someone from another “tradition” or “confession” within Protestantism disagrees with our interpretation, they are disagreeing (in our minds) with God’s Word; when in fact the reality is, is that all they are disagreeing with is my “interpretive tradition”. Do you see this problem Jesse?
Btw, I would still like to hear from Nate B. on this.
In Christ,
Bobby G.
P.S. Please excuse my straightforwardness, I come off a little terse sometimes, I think, but that’s only because of time-restraints (and because I don’t like playing games), usually; the rest of the time it’s the flesh which I ask forgiveness for.
Gerry,
Thanks for your reply. I apologize for the brevity of my previous response, due to a lunch meeting I had to run to.
I would like to save our discussion about sola Scriptura until tomorrow, if that’s okay. The article tomorrow will deal much more extensively with that topic, which will allow us to dialogue about that in more detail.
The Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone is, of course, founded in great New Testament texts such as Eph. 2:8–10; Rom. 4:5; Titus. 3:4–7. And it is this doctrine, along with sola Scriptura that really defines the dividing line between Protestants and Roman Catholics. For an extended discussion of the importance of this issue, please see John Gerstner’s article on justification by faith.
Gerstner makes the point in his article that it is either salvation by grace (that is, by faith alone), or it is salvation by works. It cannot work both ways. He writes:
****
****
Now, with regard to the church fathers, let’s take a closer look at a few of the quotes that you so readily dismiss. For instance, Clement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians writes this:
Whether or not you consider him a pope is not really the issue. His letter (which most patristic scholars consider the earliest non-canonical Christian epistle, dating perhaps to the first century) seems to spell out justification by faith alone quite clearly: It is not by works, but by faith.
I am happy to keep going down the list. But Clement is a good place to start. I look forward to your comments.
Thanks,
NB
Tammy, you said, “Can you show me in Scripture where God’s people were led by sola Scriptura?”
Acts 17:11
@ Gerry,
I don’t think a Evangelical would have much prb w/ the early church father’s you quoted. Indeed we do believe in the Catholic church and that it is the primary (only?) vehicle that is equipped w/ the Gospel.
But Catholic church before in the 5th century and before only meant the universal invisible church and from all the ppl you have quoted.
Those father’s most certainly did not mean the current ROMAN catholic church with Popes, magisterium, etc. (ie didn’t really “exist” no where near its current configuration).
In conclusion - I think you have misunderstood what the early father’s meant by “Catholic Church” and that they were referring to all believers (aka universal invisible church in modern church jargon).
Tammy,
Amen!!
The Catholic church before in the 5th century and before only meant the universal invisible church and from all the ppl you have quoted.
The occurrence phrases like “the Catholic Church” and the “Great Church” were signs of a movement towards the formation of a Christian republic with a unifying organization of its own. The practical tendencies in the same direction were in the meantime at work. IT was in the later years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, it became the custom for bishops of a particular province or region to meet together in council for the settlement of important questions. The church at Rome, (this was not the Roman Catholic church of today) but believers in the churches at Rome. They were beginning gradually invested with a sort of honorary or informal precedence. They were starting a state within a state.
The government of the time in Rome are anywhere else did not yet detect in Christendom the presence of a unified and organized rival power destined to complete with it on equ;al terms.
The “Roman Catholic Church” system was know known in those early years.
Charles
David Moore has his mind in the right place……..it’s on Christ Jesus and His Truth…….he has the mind of Christ and it’s that simple.
Gerry,
I just want to give you encouragement. When I read the quotes that you present from the early Church fathers, I find the evidence overwhelming. Part of the reason I converted to Catholicism several years ago was the nuanced and informed way Catholic theologians and spiritual writers interpreted scripture. For the first time I could respect and understand scripture within the framework of lived faith and salvation history - something I never felt in my gut when I was Baptist. When I read Catholic writers like Thomas Merton - or even the Catechism I felt like I was reading about Christianity with its skin on - not just a skeleton.
Mrs. Burrows, Acts 17:11 does not prove sola Scriptura. I very briefly dealt with this on Profound Gratitude in an entry titled New Revelation.
In short, in discussing the Bereans and how they searched the Scriptures to see whether these things were so, you must ask “What things?” The new revelation Paul was giving them.
Paul was preaching something new, that hadn’t been revealed before and the Bereans were noble-minded and didn’t just stick with sola Scriptura. They accepted the word of Paul as what it was: Word of God.
The Bible states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. We are never told to watch for the compilation of inspired writings to come.
Chad,
You’re just trying on religions to see which one fits…….just like clothes. The only problem is, you’re not looking for the Truth, so nothing will truly fit your expectation. With clothes you can return them, but if you don’t find the Truth, after you die, you can’t return all the religions you tried on…….because there is only One Truth. So you had better find the Truth now while you have a chance, because there is no such thing as purgatory.
Verses shouldn’t be embraced outside of the chapters and books in which they reside(but rather in context ~ with the text and in conjunction with verses elsewhere in the Bible that provide further information on the matter) nor should words be given a contemporary definition when one needs to go to the original meaning/intent of the word.
An example of context is this first shared by Tammy:
“The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time were very into the Scriptures. Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” John 5:39-40 The Scriptures are a testament to Jesus but Scripture study alone will not give one eternal life. Eternal Life comes through obedience to His commandments.”
For further illumination on the subject:
Jesus also talked about the Jewish leaders not coming to Him…a few verses earlier…because they didn’t hear His voice…they were not His sheep and not of His fold. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn010.html#26 (read verses before and after) http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Jhn/10/26.html
They couldn’t see the kingdom nor could they enter in…because they weren’t first born again spiritually. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#13 http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn003.html#top (John 3:1-8…born~made alive~quickened first…then 10-21 further testifies of those that won’t come to the light because they haven’t been born spiritually and those that have been born spiritually and given eternal life are the “whosoever believeth”). Those leaders of Israel tried…they believed they kept the commandments and the oodles of requirements they added to show their piety…their zeal was for God but not according to knowledge. They set about to establish their own righteousness(Romans 10).
Faith is fruit of the Spirit(no one saved by God’s will can boast that they have “the faith of God” because they are baptized or take communion or keep the 10 commandments or “do anything” other than being born of God as He wills a person to be a vessel of mercy. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom009.html#top).
The traditions Paul spoke of surely involve the gift of faith that the Old Testament saints would have also understood(God working with His elect which results in the believer acting in righteousness ~ again, a person does not obey in order to gain faith. Abraham was granted faith and believed prior to being circumcised…an outward sign of an inward reality similar to Christian water baptism of a person that already received spiritual birth/life and does believe)…the same faith of Moses and Abraham(Galatians 3:24 reflects that the Law is the schoolmaster that leads a believer ~the word us~ to understand they cannot keep it to gain faith but can obey because of being given faith of God yet Jesus is their propitiation even when failing to obey. Read the verses in Hebrews to read of the people that acted “by faith” and what God sovereignly orchestrated.).
http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=by+faith&Version=KJV
“Born again reality comes before and causes obedience” spoken of in the New Testament is referenced in the Old.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]. Ezekial 36:26, 27 (Notice the order…new heart/spirit and God then causes obedience, orders the steps of the righteous)
It is all of God…from being born spiritually to the perseverance of those saints. That is where Catholics and those beloved of God, chosen “in Christ” from before the foundation of the world differ. God says a person can’t do anything to become His sheep. Nothing. Catholic doctrine says otherwise. How do I know? Being born spiritually and then reading the Book and viewing everything else through the Word as the lens of absolute truth(also know the insecurity of Catholicism via family rooted deeply in that faith and personally know about reading the Bible from the unregenerated perspective).
Long but what these eyes have been made to see. Hope sharing adds positively to the consideration of what God says and means.
Chad,
What did you mean by “the nuanced and informed way Catholic theologians and spiritual writers interpreted scripture?” What biblical precedent is there for this type of approach to understanding the scriptures? Are feelings (”felt in my gut”) a trustworthy gauge for determining truth?
The following quotes from some who have commented echo my views;
1) Is the Bible our ultimate authority, or is the church our ultimate authority?
–No doubt that there can be conflict with interpretation (hermeneutics) among evangelicals and some who use the title, but in practice seem far from a balanced interpretation from the historical/grammatical camp. Yet, concerning core doctrines, we must be clear, especially the gospel!
2) We freely confess that our history affects and shapes us. But it does not do so authoritatively. And when our history is shown to conflict with Scripture we should make haste to reject it.
–AMEN! There will always be the challenge within the Church to let culture slip into the pews. Part of this is also traditions usually as a rebellion against dogmatic, stale worship practices. But when teaching is in error, there can be no messing around.
I find the study of history interesting, but in the end irrelevant. The RCC has departed from too many fundamental doctrines to have any confidence in the church itself. MacArthur discusses several concerning issues;
“The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture.”
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence”
“According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal” ”
Who really cares what the RCC historical basis is– what is important today is their teaching and how it impacts its members.
The RCC for many seem to meet the need of being religious and having a faith without ever having to confront their sin and need for a Savior and Lord.
I see this with my family. To this day, my father at age 80 says he cannot understand Scripture, it is not his role but the churches role to interpret Scripture.
This is a cop out (excuse) as I share the gospel with him. Rather than repent of his sin before a holy God, he chooses to believe in tradition that seems to satisfy his conscience. In the end, he has no understanding of his sin before God and man and he has been part of the RCC for over 75 years.
That is tragic.
@ Gerry
Can you give us what these Apostolic traditions are?
Even if I granted you that I’m sure whatever these traditions were did not go outright against the Scripture.
Also, you have to keep in my the Sola Scriptura does not mean when the Apostles or Jesus were around that we would say that there words were not authoritative (ie Sola Scriptura was not “in effect” as it is today, in pre-Revelation times).
Today we do not have people with infallible communication from God (not even the Pope!) and the only thing we have on that level is the Word of God ie the Scripture.
Brian,
What I meant by informed and nuanced is that I find that many Catholic writers I’ve read tend to have a way of writing, and thought, that takes into account a wider breadth of history (and other disciplines) that inform their exigesis - not to mention a wider pool of Christian thought that many Protestants find irrelevant. This gives me more confidence in them.
What Biblical precedence is there for not taking a nuanced and informed approach to scripture?
What I meant about my gut feelings is that when I was younger, and maybe not as able to articulate my feelings of disconect with the Biblical teaching I was given as a Baptist, I still had a feeling that there was more to faith than what I was given, i.e. it had to be more multi-dimensional and relevant to my life and the varieties of human existence. You’re right, feelings aren’t the only thing we go on, but sometimes their a good start.
John,
You asked: “Can you give us what these Apostolic traditions are?”
Just so you know, we will address that very topic on Wednesday (in part 3 of our ongoing series). If your question is not addressed in this thread, it will come up again on Wednesday.
- NB
‘Apostolic Tradition’ encompasses all ‘orthodox’ doctrines of Christianity. Doctrines such as the Trinity, Miraculous Incarnation, and the various divinity teachings are unscriptural - demonstrably so. They are solely the product of the post-apostolic fathers.
When the scriptures fell into Greek, and subsequently Latin, hands, the teachings underwent a change in accordance with the predilections of those particular nationalities. Because their minds were set in the key of a different structure, they projected into scripture elements from their own prevailing national religions.
Doctrines were crystallised by the disputes among early Gentile fathers who looked into the Pool of Narcissus (the scriptures), saw themselves imaged there, and then projected this, their own image, upon the world through the medium of ecclesiastical councils called by Roman Emperors from 325AD onwards.
Christendom bears the image, not of the mind of the Hebrew Jesus and the character of the Hebrew God, but of early Gentile theology.
Thx Nate,
I’d like to know what the early father’s meant when they said “Apostolic traditions.”
If its anything like your article in TMJ about the gift of Tongues and the Early Fathers, I’m sure it will be great.
-John
Dear Mrs. Burrows,
Acts 17:11 does not prove sola Scriptura. Who was in charge in Acts ch 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? the Bible alone or the apostles and elders?
The apostles said very clearly that there were some people teaching things who did not have authority to be teaching. And in Acts 16:4, Paul and Timothy didn’t deliver Bibles to the people in the different towns, they delivered the decrees that the apostles and elders decided upon.
I’m not saying that Scripture isn’t important. Whether you believe it or not, Scripture is HIGHLY revered in the Catholic Church. We believe what Paul said, it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim 3:16
But this verse is not saying that only the Bible can be used for doctrine. If this were the case, how did the apostles arrive at the decision that Gentiles weren’t required to be circumcised? At the time of the Jerusalem Council, there was NO New Testament. What Old Testament Scripture leads one to believe that circumcision was not necessary? The apostles made a decision at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) that was not based on Scripture and actually could have been viewed as being contrary to the Scriptures that the people had at the time.
you said: The traditions Paul spoke of surely involve the gift of faith that the Old Testament saints would have also understood(God working with His elect which results in the believer acting in righteousness ~ again, a person does not obey in order to gain faith. Abraham was granted faith and believed prior to being circumcised…
I never said a person had to obey in order to gain faith. I said a person had to obey God’s commandments in order to receive eternal life. Yes, Abraham believed (even the demons believe) but he also obeyed. What if he had decided that he didn’t want to be circumcised? would that still be ok with God? when have God’s commands ever been optional?
I’m fairly certain that those Old Testament saints would have understood that 1) the priests had teaching authority. “For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” Malachi 2:7
and 2)obedience to God’s commandments was an absolute necessity. “The LORD is with you when you are with Him And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.” 2 Chronicles 15:2
“…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17 How can you contradict the very words of Jesus and say obedience to God’s commands are not necessary?
This saith Mrs. Burrows: God says a person can’t do anything to become His sheep.
and where does God say this?
In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus said on Judgment Day He will separate the sheep from the goats. It sure looks to me like the sheep are those who actually DO His will and the goats are those who don’t. I know the standard response, “but they weren’t truly believers.” True, those who truly believe OBEY. not because it is easy or automatic but because they choose to obey out of love for their Savior.
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned….If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. John 15
Tammy, it is clearly obvious that we are on opposing sides of the truth of God. The Bible teaches that a person is made spiritually alive of no effort of their own ~ faith, love, obedience to God’s commandments, repenting, believing, glorifying God, hearing with ears that have been made to hear and seeing with eyes that have been made to see ~ all those aspects and more WILL follow when spiritual life has been given by God’s sovereign grace. God first chose and foreloved/foreknew the individuals He saves. Spiritually dead people do not choose to love God or choose to obey in order to receive what is a gift of God’s free grace and sovereign will. How can a person see or enter God’s kingdom when spiritually unable in deadness(their will only freely allows them to act in their spiritually dead nature in sin in Adam…they reject and hate what is spiritually discerned and cannot and will not come to the Light in their deadness)? He must enable them first(the Truth sets them free in Christ to choose to act as enabled as a new creation in the Spirit in Christ). He gives a clear picture of this as He quickened Lazarus prior to the command to obey the call of Jesus to come forth(John 11). Just as He quickened/opened the heart of Lydia prior to her attending to the things spoken of by Paul(Acts 16:14).
What value is there in arguing what is spiritually discerned? You aren’t asking of the hope that is in me but rather are trying to disprove what I am showing you in God’s Word…trying to prove teaching of error with verses that do not say what you want them to say because you are leaving out part of the equation in light of other verses in the Bible. Deadly error. Sheep have been given eternal life and thus prove that they are God’s workmanship in their actions. Goats are goats and act accordingly as vessels of wrath because God didn’t choose them to eternal life. The horse must come before the cart with regeneration and obedience. It is error to put the cart first and give man glory due God alone concerning salvation. This is what Catholicism teaches and it is a gospel message not found in the Word of God. Catholcism offers a non-saving demon-type believing faith to receive eternal life rather than a saving faith of God where He gives it freely of His sovereign choice to those that do not and cannot and will not believe in their spiritual deadness.
In humility and with gratitude that drives me to my knees ~ I choose the Word and love Him and what He says because He first loved me and caused and enabled me to even think to respond that way. May we not always disagree concerning the things of God.
Praise God that other Catholics have joined the fray!! Thank you Lord.
Chad, my brother..As St. John Cardinal Newman said when he converted from Anglicanism “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant”
John, (Mio Fratello)
concerning your “invisible church”
Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house” (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).
John 20:
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
*Why would Jesus give the Apostles and their successors the power to forgive a retain sins to an “invisible church”
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.
*A visible Church has a shepherd. There have been 266 “Bishops of Rome” (Pope-Papa) with the current one being Benedict the 16th.
A visible Church convenes “Councils” like the one in Acts (there have been 21)
God bless.
Mrs. Burrows,
I deeply regret that you feel I am in deadly error. But according to your doctrine, I suppose this is no fault of my own because I am not the elect? If I cannot be saved through any effort of my own and if I cannot work out my own salvation through fear and trembling then why chastise me if it ain’t my fault? I am amazed that the very people who loudly proclaim catholics to be in deadly error also proclaim that one has nothing to do with their own salvation because the choice has been made for them.
Jesus died for me while I was yet a sinner through no effort of my own. I have searched Scriptures and the Holy Spirit very clearly showed me that MY actions DO matter. He showed this to me before I was Catholic and through the Bible alone. I was born Baptist then parents ended up in a non-denominational church until I reconciled to the catholic Church in 1997.
I’m not sure how you can start in Genesis and believe that men have no free will or responsibility for their actions. How can you read the Old Testament and not see that God was angered when the Israelites CHOSE to sin? Like so many who hold the beliefs that you do, you continue to parrot your pet verses that seemingly prove your point while dodging the hard questions that are thrown at you. I will list again the questions that you have failed to answer:
1. Who was in charge in Acts ch 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? the Bible alone or the apostles and elders? (it’s a simple question, isn’t it?)
2. How did the apostles arrive at the decision that Gentiles weren’t required to be circumcised? through Bible alone? (Acts 15) and related to that question is this: What Old Testament Scripture leads one to believe that circumcision was not necessary?
3. Did Paul deliver decrees decided upon in Jerusalem for the whole church to obey? (a simple yes or no answer, hint Acts 16:4)
4. What if Abraham had decided that he didn’t want to be circumcised? would that still be OK with God? when have God’s commands ever been optional? (I would REALLY like an answer to this question)
5. “…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17 How can you contradict the very words of Jesus and say obedience to God’s commands are not necessary? What do you think Jesus meant by these words?
Mrs. Burrows, I really hope you will consider actually answering the questions presented instead of talking around them and changing the subject.
and Gerry, if you are reading, keep up the good work dear brother!
Tammy,
God bless you my dear sister, in Christ Jesus.
Good to hear in these discussions that the Bible is referred to as scripture and not as “the Word” - as so many christians are in the habit of doing.
What is authoritative, what gives life? Scripture or tradition or both? How about the Holy Spirit? Reference to the Spirit is absent above. True, the Spirit, often a vague notion in our churches(so milky white) is such a messy and often scary thing compared to the solidness of scripture and tradition. The Spirit does not offer much to hold onto for those of us who need to touch (even the concept of truth) to believe and begin living this new life we have supposedly received. Nonetheless, it is in the Spirit in you that one needs to trust - which may result in having to work out our lives in fear and trembling for it is the Spirit that works in us - both to will and do. Rather than the prescribed, “do this and do that” Jesus declares, “Behold the wind which blows where it will; you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going, so it is for those who are born of the Spirit.”
The “Tammy” / “Mrs Burrows” discussion is a good one. They really argue both positions well and a lot can be learned. I haven’t read the other two articles and will not comment on the “T/Mrs B” discussion as of yet, but I do think there is a common ground to this divide.
Hi,
what an interesting discussion! Let me try an understand this ok?
Catholic belief is that there is a parallel amount of teaching that is not found in the scriptures that has been passed down thru the Apostles, then to the Popes.
Have I got it correct?
So, can someone point to a current tradition that doesn’t line up with Scripture?
Also, I’m trying to grasp the idea that because the Holy Spirit inspired the bible authors to write certain things down, that someone can add something and call it authoritative.
thanks,
bob
Bob,
This is not really a direct answer, but I believe it is a pre-requisite for further discussion.
If you’ve seen the movie A Few Good Men, there’s the scene in which Kevin Bacon gives Noah Wylie the handbook and asks him to show him where it says about a Code Red. Wylie says there is no such part, to which a mock fundamentalist Bacon implies that Code Red’s don’t exist and are not done, since there is no formal instructions on when or how to administer one. As a confident Bacon goes to sit down, an equally confident Tom Cruise grabs the book and asks Wylie to show him where in the book it tells him how to get to the mess hall. Wylie guffaws and says there is no such part. Cruise, with mock incredulity, asks Wylie if the court is supposed to believe he never eats because there is nothing in the instruction manual on how to get to the chow hall. Wylie proudly says he eats three squares a day. Cruise, with continued mock disbelief, asks Wylie how he finds the dining hall, to which Wylie replies that he just follows people there.
Point: just because something is not contained in the Bible does not mean that it hasn’t been assumed from the beginning, such that nobody saw much need to write it down. Nobody ever thought that something continuously lived out was in risk of being lost due to not being in scripture.
That’s tradition and how it works.
But it would not be obvious to a follower of a denomination that threw out the baby with the bath-water, especially if that follower is living in a “tradition” that threw out most of the original Tradition roughly 500 years ago. It’s not their fault. *Anyone* would be at a disadvantage to comprehend and appreciate this doctrine under such circumstances.
O.W.