In conversations with Protestants, the topic of sola scriptura will almost always come up. According to those who are persuaded by this idea, the Bible—sixty-six, not seventy-three, books—is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the Church. Whatever is not specifically in the Bible, or may be logically inferred from it, is not binding upon Christians.
The idea is actually self-refuting when asked this simple question: “So where is sola scriptura in the Bible? If it is not to be found there, then the teaching is self-refuting: Whatever is not in the Bible is not binding on Christians >> Sola scriptura is not in the Bible >> ergo, sola scriptura is not binding on Christians.
Protestants do, however, have a handful of proof texts that they often use in order to give some basis to sola scriptura. Here are three of them, and why they do not in fact prove this teaching.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
The problem with using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a proof text is that no Catholic denies that all scripture is inspired by God. That’s not the question. The question is whether only scripture is inspired by God. For a Protestant to cite this verse is, in fact, to beg the question.
Acts 17:11
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
This verse is more difficult to answer. A Protestant will want to claim that the Scriptures are presented as the sole standard of proof in this text. There are two main problems, however.
First, the “scriptures” referred to are the Old Testament only, and if—as is likely—the Bereans were using the Septuagint, that canon included the Deuterocanonical books rejected by Protestants today.
Second, the “things” in question, which the Bereans sought evidence of in the scriptures, was the teaching of the apostles that Jesus was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. Thus the Scriptures were directly relevant to the question that was being asked. Where else would they have looked except the Old Testament? This does not prove that there are no other rules of faith, only that this rule of faith was the only one relevant to the question at hand.
Mark 7:13
“You make the word of God of none effect through your tradition.”
Protestants interpret this verse as a blanket condemnation of all tradition, against “the word of God,” by which they mean the Bible alone.
These words, spoken by Jesus, come at the conclusion of his condemnation of the Corban rule. The Corban rule was a loophole that the Pharisees had discovered in the command to honor your father and mother by, among other things, taking care of them in their old age. By designating a portion of one’s income as Temple treasury, they could get around this obligation.
The important thing to note here is that Jesus does not condemn tradition as such, only a particular tradition that had developed specifically in order to avoid a commandment. The tradition contradicted Scripture.
But the Catholic teaching on tradition is not that it is contradictory to Scripture, but that it is in addition to Scripture. For Protestants to cite the Corban rule is to avoid the real nature of the dispute between sola scriptura and tradition.
If a tradition were to be found that contradicts Scripture, then Catholics would be right to do away with it. But if it is merely in addition to Scripture, Christ’s condemnation of the Corban rule has no bearing.
Before Protestants use Mark 7:13 to blanket condemn all Tradition, they’d better take a good, hard look at these three verses:
“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 Thessalonians 2:15)
“Keep away from any brother who is not in accord with THE TRADITION that you received from us.”
(2 Thessalonians 3:6)
“I commend you because you MAINTAIN THE TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you.”
(1 Corinthians 11:2)
So,here’s the question, “bdlaacmm” : Give us the EXACT “traditions” the great Apostle Paul was talking about, in the order given to him,and who gave these traditions to him—Go!
I thank bdlaacmm for the valuable quotes that clearly indicate that there is more to Christianity than what we find in the Bible. The letters of Paul to communities that he had been instructing for a long time (as in Corinthian) are clearly not a catechism of the basics he taught orally but are there to deal with specific points of teaching. Moreover, Jesus had already warned us: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming” (Jn 16:12-13). That is why, for example, Peter was lead to understand that the old laws regarding food were no longer applicable (Acts 10:15). This does not mean that the Church no longer needed future help after the Apostolic age, which is why Jesus gave the Spirit at Pentecost — not just for then, but forever. We always will need guidance, which is why Jesus did not leave a book — he left the Spirit, and so he said: “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28:20).
And don’t forget how the Apostle John ends his 2nd and 3rd letters:
“I have much to write to you. I would rather not use paper and ink, but I
hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy
may be complete.” (1 John 1:12)
“I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.”
(2 John: 13-14)
What the traditions are isn’t the question but rather are all traditions condemned. Not according to the Bible.
Hmm…I’m not sure what you are talking about here,Mr.Peters,but I’m pretty sure that the topic isn’t about whether ALL traditions are condemned; to my knowledge no one said that.Every denominational constructs have traditions; that’s not the issue for Protestant Christians. The questions we ask are actually fairly simple: What is the precise meaning of” tradition” in Roman Catholicism,and what particular purpose does tradition serve in the salvific paradigm? If I reject the concept of purgatory,am I somehow less a child of Almighty God? What about Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity? If I reject that idea because it can’t be Biblically verified, am I still saved? I think you get my drift,Mr.Peters.Unless”traditions” as they are usually iterated by Roman Catholic dogma somehow enhances the salvation experience in some as-yet-to-be-realized sense,we Protestants don’t find any particular value in them (At least I don’t). As the man you catholics claim as your first”pope ” made clear in Acts 4 : 12: “…there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other Name given under heaven whereby we must be saved “. Unless”tradition” can build a better Jesus,or a better Saviour, I’ve yet to see the point. PEACE.?.
Laurence, I was responding to your response to bdlaacmm. He posted ” Before Protestants use Mark 7:13 to blanket condemn all Tradition,” Hopefully that clears it up for you. As regards to your questions “What is the precise meaning of” tradition” in Roman Catholicism and what particular purpose does tradition serve in the salvific paradigm?” I thought this was a great question and I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a good definition of Tradition in Articles 75-95, you can look it up on line. The second part of your question, I think you provided a excellent example with the perpetual virginity of Mary. For instance if you look at St. Jerome defending the perpetual virginity of Mary some 1,600 years ago “Would he [Joseph], who knew such great wonder, have dared touch the temple of God, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of his Lord?” { On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius,7.} and to Martin Luther, founder of the reformation “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” {Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30)} I think you see a continuous belief in this Tradition but yet most modern day Protestants don’t believe it or just don’t care. You asked if this has any bearing on your salvation, I’ll let the great Apostle St. Paul speak to that. “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers (1 Tim. 4:16) A excellent book on this very subject is { Behold your Mother A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines by Tim Staples}
Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA – Big Pulpit
Great! Good to see these points made in a clear way that Protestants will be able to understand. BTW, we have some things in common. I have an M.A. English with a writing emphasis, taught college composition and memoir writing, and did a lot of Protestant denomination hopping on my way back the Catholic Church. I also blog about apologetics and anything else (usually Catholic Church related at https://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.com.
The entire Bible is a pretty good reputation against Sola scriptura especially the part about private interpretation even says in Genesis” do not interpretations belong to God”?
How about John 21:25?
Or Acts 8:26-40, when St. Philip had to interpret the Scripture passages in Isaiah for the Ethiopian eunuch. Scripture is not self-interpreting; it can’t even tell us what IS or IS NOT Scripture. The Catholic Church had to do that, and the fact that non-Catholics use the Catholic canon for the New Testament proves that even they trust that she got it right.
With all due respect, tradition is not ‘in addition’ to scripture. There is only one tradition, one Christ, one teaching and truth entrusted to the apostles and guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, one Church. That tradition is a unified, organic whole that contains prayer and liturgy and sacraments and scripture and the authority handed down.
To try to isolate one aspect or worse yet cite it in opposition to other elements is to cease to be in the Faith…and only clinging to one remnant of the shipwreck you ran onto the rocks.
Second, Catholic apologetics need to stop answering the proof texters. If someone has rejected the authority of the Church, no answer will convince them. Endlessly taking the bait is just cooperating with the gaslighting.
The Catholic response should be as simple as “Because unity.” Don’t argue the justifications, name the sin. Disunity is a sin. Lack of charity toward the Church is a sin. Disrespect toward Mary and the saints is a sin.
We are faced with sins to repent of, not intellectual assents to tweak.