 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1845 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
This info. was posted in a thread that has now been removed due to massive forum violations of one of the participants.
-----------
I've written more about this than anything else. The relevant material is on these four web pages:
The Bible, Church, Tradition, & Canon
The Bible: Sola Scriptura
The Church (Ecclesiology)
The Papacy and Infallibility
What is condemned in Scripture (and by Jesus and Paul) are corrupt human traditions that contradicted God's commands and Tradition. Many non-Catholic Christians condemn tradition altogether and pit it against the Church and the Bible. But the Bible teaches that all three have authority and often mentions a positive, apostolic tradition, received from Jesus and passed down through the apostles. See my paper "Tradition" is Not a Dirty Word.
In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians:
Acts 15:28-29: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that:
. . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)
This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding -- with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council.
Many Protestant critics of Catholic, biblical, apostolic Tradition appeal to the Bereans (also a very common argument for sola Scriptura). I recommend a great paper on that: "Did the Noble-Minded Bereans Believe in Bible Alone?", by my friend Steve Ray.
Nor did the Jews in the Old Testament believe in sola Scriptura. See my lengthy paper on this topic.
Nor did Jesus and Paul confine themselves to the written revelation. They also accepted the authority of oral traditions:
A) Matthew 2:23: the reference to ". . . He shall be called a Nazarene " cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down "by the prophets." Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be "God's Word" was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.
B) Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down is taught.
C) In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock which "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does.
D) 2 Timothy 3:8 "As Jannes and Jambres oppsed Moses . . . " These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
E) 2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
F) 2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
St. Paul even equated theis "tradition" that he taught with the the "word of God," the "faith," and "the gospel," as we see in the following comparison:
1) Traditions "delivered" (1 Cor 11:2), "taught by word or epistle" (2 Thes 2:15), and "received" (2 Thes 3:6).
2) The Gospel "preached" and "received" (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).
3) Word of God "heard" and "received" (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).
4) Doctrine "delivered" (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).
5) Holy Commandment "delivered" (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).
6) The Faith "delivered" (Jude 3).
7) "Things believed among us" "delivered" (Lk 1:1-2).
Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul's writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, "gospel," "word of God," and "tradition" are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that "tradition" is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then "gospel" and "word of God" are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.
The papacy also has much explicit biblical indication. See:
50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)
Biblical Evidence for Papal and Church Infallibility
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 06:29 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
