Tuesday, July 25, 2006

The Last Nail into the Coffin of Sola Scriptura?

I know several people who are fundamentalist Christians and believe in the term Sola Scriptura. Its one of the many main things that seperate our Protestant lost brothers and sisters from the true identity of Christ. They do not believe among other things in Oral Tradition as is taught in the true church that Christ founded... that would be the Catholic one. Here I have gathered together a ton of verses and pure logic to put to death the very idea o Sola Scriptura, it is simply not biblical.

Doctrinal Examples

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, "that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’" (Matt. 2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase "He shall be called a Nazarene" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on "by the prophets."

The proposed solutions to explain this verse are legion. They range from trying to find some word-play on "Nazarene" in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, to viewing this text as loosely "fulfilling" a conglomeration of Old Testament passages that refer to a despised Messiah. The serious grappling by scholars with the text is admirable, but in the end their solutions seem farfetched.

It may be that we should seek resolution in simplicity. When read in Greek, the introduction to this prophecy differs from all the other "fulfillment" sayings in Matthew (for example Matt. 1:22, 2:15, 3:15, and others). Thus, the failed attempts to locate the Old Testament background to this prophecy, coupled with this unique introduction, suggest to me that the simplest solution is probably the correct one: Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This then would be an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: "The scribes and 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).

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting "on Moses’ seat." One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abôte indicates, the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this author itative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected.

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

In addition, we see that the structure of the Catholic Church—with an authoritative teaching office comprised of bishops who are the direct successors of the apostles—follows the example of ancient Israel. While there are groups of Christians today that deny continuity between Israel and the Church, historic orthodox Christianity has always understood the Church to be a fulfillment of Israel. This verse about Moses’ chair illuminates why we say that the successor of Peter, when he gives a solemn teaching for the whole Church, is said to speak ex cathedra or "from the chair."

Whereas under the Old Covenant the administration of God’s people came from the "chair of Moses," Christians under the New Covenant look to the "chair of Peter" for direction on questions of faith and morals. But there is a notable difference between the magisterium under the Old Covenant and our teachers under the New Covenant. The successors of the apostles, and especially Peter’s successor, have the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, and they have Jesus’ promise that the "gates of hell will not prevail" against the Church (Matt. 16:17-19).

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: "All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. In a further development, another Tradition, given by Philo, even equates this rock with preexistent Wisdom: "For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God, which he marked off highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God."

It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1 Cor. 10:5ff.). Paul does not hesitate to draw on stock oral Tradition to illustrate and enhance his presentation of the gospel. The details provided in these Traditions preserved under the Old Covenant shed fresh light on the preparation that God made through Israel for the building of his Church and on the characteristics of the Christian sacraments.

1 Peter 3:19

In his first epistle Peter tells of Christ’s journey to the netherworld during which "he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah" (1 Pet. 3:19). There is a growing scholarly consensus that the interpretive key to this verse is found in Genesis 6:1-7, in which "the sons of God" cohabited with "the daughters of men" and produced ghastly offspring. According to ancient interpretation, these "sons of God" were actually rebellious angels who sinned by mating with human women.

It appears likely that this is Peter’s view as well. "For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until judgment…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial" (2 Pet. 2:4, 9). Note the close link to Noah and Geneses 6. Compare too Jude 6, which says that "the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day…" These references are evidence that Peter has this traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in mind when he writes of Christ’s preaching "to the spirits in prison."

Additional background is found in the extra-biblical book of 1 Enoch. In this work, which was popular both in ancient Jewish and early Christian circles, the righteous man Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at God’s command to the place where these sinful angels are imprisoned and proclaims their impending judgment and punishment for their sin.

The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too close to dismiss. It seems possible that Peter views Enoch as a "type" of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays Christ as a "second Enoch," who goes to the spirit world and proclaims the final downfall of these evil spirits (compare Col. 2:15). Peter’s source for this analogy is Tradition, not Scripture.

This example is significant because it highlights one of the important functions that Tradition still plays for us. As is all too clear from the divisions within Christendom, Scripture may be interpreted in many different ways. Sometimes the Traditions passed on in the Catholic Church provide the interpretive key to certain passages. This was important in the early Church, because heretics of all stripes appealed to the Bible in support of their doctrine.

It is simply false to suppose that the early Church relied on sola scriptura to defend Christian orthodoxy. "There is no reason to infer," says J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, "that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles." Rather, the early Church Fathers argued that the interpretations of the heretics were not in line with the "rule of faith," that is, the deposit of Tradition passed on by the apostles to the bishops of the Catholic Church and preserved through an unbroken lineage.

A specific application of this is the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The data of the New Testament concerning the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus are ambiguous by themselves, although I would argue that the biblical evidence leans toward the Catholic interpretation. But we have additional help in the form of the Traditions preserved in the early Church which say that Mary remained a virgin and bore no other children besides Jesus. So Tradition can sometimes serve as arbiter and interpreter in cases where the meaning of Scripture is unclear.

Jude 9

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: "When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’" (Jude 9).
As H. Willmering says in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, "This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle." Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body. Several of the Church Fathers know of another version in which Moses’ body is assumed into heaven after his death. Jude draws on this oral Tradition to highlight the incredible arrogance of the heretics he opposes; even Michael the archangel did not take it on himself to rebuke Satan, and yet these men have no scruples in reviling celestial beings.

This text provides another example of a New Testament author tapping oral Tradition to expound Christian doctrine—in this case an issue of behavior. In addition, this text relates well to a Catholic dogma that troubles many non-Catholics—the bodily Assumption of Mary. There is no explicit biblical evidence for Mary’s Assumption (although see Rev. 12:1-6), but Jude not only provides us with a third biblical example of the bodily assumption of one of God’s special servants (see also Gen. 5:24, 2 Kgs. 2:11), he shows that oral Tradition can be the ground on which belief in such a dogma may be based.

Jude 14-15

This one’s a real show-stopper, perhaps the best example of all. St. Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, "It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’"

This statement may also be found in the non-Scriptural book of 1 Enoch (1:9); but Jude’s use of it does not really say anything about the inspiration of 1 Enoch. Rather, he asserts that the saying itself actually hales from the venerable Enoch, whose righteous life is mentioned in Genesis 4-5.

Here is a tradition, a prophetic revelation, which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) and then in an inspired document (Jude). Did the writers of the New Testament ever regard oral tradition as divine revelation? This example more than any other shows that the answer to that is a resounding, Yes!


horicon said...

Hi Michael,

I think i might have asked this question before, maybe in a different way, anyways. What isn't in the bible that is necessary for our salvation or daily life? It’s true that the complete Bible wasn't written down in the time right after Jesus' ascension, but that doesn't mean that God's Word wasn't the basis of the Church, because it was. Before Jesus ascended he promised the Apostles that he and the Holy Spirit would be with them always, giving them guidance. These apostles had seen Jesus in the flesh and had been following him since his baptism. They had also received blessings of the Holy Spirit that no one else had. They were specially trained by Jesus with his word by their side, not in a book, but in their hearts. The words they spoke were not there own, but were inspired by God. The word was alive in the apostles; those few extraordinary men whom Jesus chose to spread his word in the great commission.

Getting to the point here.....

The apostles needed all this special training and treatment because there was no written word of God yet, but God's Word still was there. God's Word, though not written, has been around since the creation of the world.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

John 17:17 says,
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

God's word is the only truth that we have. Sola-Scriptura means God's Word alone. After the time of the Apostles was over, there was no more first-hand accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, it was absolutely crucial to put the apostles teachings [which were really Christ’s Teachings] on to paper, so that they would not be corrupted. What I’m saying, is that everything written in the Bible, is the same that the apostles were teaching regarding our faith, salvation, and daily lives. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with Traditions, we still hold fast to many traditions of the Church. Oral Traditions especially if not specified in the written word of God are not required as if necessary for our salvation. There lies the difference between the orally passed down God's Word, and the written God's Word. The orally passed down God's Word is susceptible to change, to be tweaked to ones own liking. And now, it has been many, many generations since the living word "Christ" walked on the earth. And it has been many generations since his specially trained apostles have spoken the truth of God's Word.

2 Timothy 4:3 says,
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

After the apostles or even during their time, people tried to twist God's Word. That is why it is so crucial that we write down God's Word, to preserve it till the end of time.

Once again, i believe traditions are fine, but they are not the foundation on which we are to base our lives. If a tradition contradicts God's Word, it should not be followed. If a tradition is not in God's Word, then it is most likely an adiaphora.

Regarding the Nazarene statement; Is the fact that Jesus was going to be a Nazarene crucial or important to our salvation or daily lives? We know that not everything is recorded in the Bible, I think we could all agree that there would not be a place big enough to hold all that it would be if every single minute detail was written.
But is every single minute detail important to know? I would have to say, no. Does the Catholic Church believe that everything important or necessary is written in the Bible?

You stated,
As is all too clear from the divisions within Christendom, Scripture may be interpreted in many different ways. Sometimes the Traditions passed on in the Catholic Church provide the interpretive key to certain passages. This was important in the early Church, because heretics of all stripes appealed to the Bible in support of their doctrine.

The same can be said of tradition. There is no promise from God that he will keep the traditions of the Church without error or deny their susceptibility to change.

St. Michael the Archangel said...


You just stated this "This was important in the early Church, because heretics of all stripes appealed to the Bible"

What makes luther and the modern day Protestants any different from these Heretics that you mentioned in the old days?

Heretics are still alive and aboud today. I am going to give you one passage on Sola Scriptura and I want you to think about this very carefully. Re-read it again untill you fully understand what it means....

Please read first letter of Paul to Timothy, chapter 3, verse 15.

Also read this:

"Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it. If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. BUT THAT PROPHET OR THAT DREAMER OF DREAMS SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH, BECAUSE HE HAS TAUGHT REBELLION AGAINST THE LORD YOUR GOD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. SO YOU SHALL PURGE THE EVIL FROM THE MIDST OF YOU."

Deuteronomy 12.32-13.5

horicon said...


I had just restated what you had said in your origianal post. Martin Luther, a sinful man, had seen the heretics in the Catholic Church. He was schooled in the Greek and Hebrew. Since the lay people were not as educated in all the languages and didn't even have a bible, {most of them anyway i believe} the error in doctrine of the Catholic Church would have to be shown by one inside the Church, one who would be brave enough to stand up and even face possible death for the truth.

I don't quite understand what you mean by quoting the second passage. Are you refering to Martin Luther as the phrophet of rebellion?

The first passage:
Isn't the Church suppose to teach God's Word, the truth? In this way it upholds the Truth as a pillar. The Church itself is not the truth, but Christ and his word, which is the foundation of the Church, is. The Church can not say whatever it wants but must follow Christ and his word.

John 17:17
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

St. Michael the Archangel said...


Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to what I was saying... LOL! I was on break at work and my mind was fried after talking to students all day!



horicon said...

Hi Michael,

Thats alright. Just wondering, were are you working right now? I work for McDonalds. I hope you are feeling much better today.


St. Michael the Archangel said...

Hey Horicon,

I work for an online College. We cater to the Military and public service community.

苦瓜鹹蛋Star said...

cool!very creative!AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,成人圖片區,性愛自拍,美女寫真,自拍