Berean Beacon's article on Sola Scriptura...
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Sola_Scriptura_early_church.pdf
( And for more Pro-Sola-Scriptura, here's a chapter from a book by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr...
http://www.mbrem123.com/bible/sufficn.php )
Here's my take on the subject (just a jumble of thoughts, not a formal essay...):
---
Some non-Catholics feel that the Catholic Church and its Tradition get in the way of a
relationship with God and with understanding Scripture. Conversly, Tradition does not inhibit us or render Scripture redundant or superfluous. Because Scripture is the very words of our Father (translated), it is a personal letter written to each of us individually as well as to all of us collectively. Scripture is our Daddy's very own writing. However, we must get help understanding it sometimes.
Here's an analogy:
A 19 year old boy's father died when the boy was just a toddler. The father, having a terminal illness, had written a long letter for his child to have and to read when he was old enough. The boy cherished the letter as he grew up, it being Dad's own writing written especially for the boy. (This fact he learned from his mother.) Some things in the letter were not fully understandable to the boy, so he would ask his mom about it. Mom, having known Dad personally and intimately could easily elucidate for the boy. Her presence and her knowledge of Dad did not render Dad's letter superfluous, nor did Mom get in the way between the boy and his father's message, but actually enhanced the father-son relationship (as it were) and gave it the fullest meaning possible for the boy.
---
Some Christians have great faith that the Bible alone is the sole medium of transmission of everything God wants us to know concerning our life in Him. Catholics believe that His Word is not necessarily bound up in a volume of inspired writings. While the written Word is holy and true, it was never meant to be the primary means of spreading the teachings of Jesus. He established the Church of the New Covenant (in visible, heirarchical form as well as spiritual association) in order to lead people to all truth.
Imagine if all the Bibles in the world disappeared... the full Gospel would still get to the world because Jesus' Church possesses it and would preach it. However, if the evangelizing/teaching Church disappeared from the earth and the Bible was still here, folks could read it but there'd likely be as many interpretations as there are people. Without the teaching authority of Jesus' Church, the Bible is limited (due to the interpretational limitations or prejudices of the reader) in it's capability to transmit the full Gospel faithfully. Look at the real world... since the popularization of "The Bible Alone" concept, in the 1500's, Christianity has divided into thousands of sects, each claiming to have the Spirit-lead correct interpretation, yet many having diametrically opposing interpretations. They can all be wrong, but they cannot all be right!
---
While the fact that the Bible is the inspired written Word of God is independant of people's opinion of it, we accept the fact of its inspiration because of an extra-scriptural authority that tells us so: Tradition. Not a human tradition but Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition. God has chosen not to give everyone a personal revelation. He left behind humans to preach His Word. The Word of God is composed of all the divine truths that the Apostles taught. Upon the death of the last Apostle, the Gospel had been completely revealed. (Since then there have been no new public revelations from God.) This is the "deposit of faith" which is handed down to us from the Apostles by the legitimate teaching authority of the Church built on the foundation of those selfsame Apostles.
---
Tradition tells us, and we accept it, that the NT writings are authored by God and Paul, or God and Peter, or God and Matthew, etc.
---
"Bible Christians" and other non-Catholic (Protestant) Christians generally downplay or despise "tradition", especially as it relates to Scripture. Concerning man-originating tradition, the Catholic can agree. But there is something called "Sacred" or "Apostolic" tradition (which the Catholic would refer to concisely as "Tradition", capital T) which the Catholic sees as all the Christic/Apostolic teachings which didn't come to be explicitly part of the canon of Scripture (ie due to the Apostle never writing it out) but is nonetheless part of what the Apostles preached and is divine Truth.
---
Q: How come self-proclaimed "Bible Christians" don't use the whole Bible? A: Because the tradition that guides them tells them the "extra" seven books don't belong in the canon of Scripture. The tradition Catholics follow tells Catholics those seven books do belong.
---
Tradition and the canon of Scripture are tightly related. New Testament Scripture was Tradition (oral) before it was written down, thus becoming part of the written word of God.
---
God's Word is not limited to texts found in the Bible...
The Word also became flesh. The Spirit of the Word indwels the Apostolic Tradition as well as Scripture. Just as the Spirit ensured (through the Church He established) the Bible (the written Word) is handed down through time and space with necessary accuracy, so teachings of Tradition (the oral Word) are handed down to us with the same fidelity.
---
The Bible explicitly or implicitly describes the divine truths the Apostles taught. Some doctrines don't spring forth blatantly from Scripture (such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary), but Sacred Tradition, the non-written Word of God, describes such doctrines and they are logically inferrable from Scripture. While the Apostles may not have written down these things, their successors have. The words the successors wrote are not considered inspired, but what they learned from the Apostles can be considered infallible.
---
Without Tradition, none of us would have the bible as we know it. Traditional doctrine was a benchmark test of a writing's canon-icity when the Church was looking to close the Canon of Scripture. (Everyone thereafter could then know without doubt what writings they should consider inspired and what writings to not consider inspired.) Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the church there would be many many different compilations of texts considered "Scripture", based on people's own private judgements. In the past, some fellows have shunned Tradition and have subtracted or added to what is considered Scripture: Martin Luther is one, another is Joseph Smith. Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church Christ established, neither of these men can be berated for such actions.
---
Today we accept the inspired nature of Scripture firstly because our tradition ingrained it into us (we who were raised Christian were indoctrinated into it, so we are inclined to believe it). What Christian home do you know of where they don't tell their kids the Bible is the inspired word of God? Secondly we believe its inspiration because it does support it's own divine origin, even if it logically cannot authenticate itself.
---
Logically, a document cannot authenticate itself. (For example, I need a notary public to authenticate some of my legal documents, despite my own signature implying their authenticity.) Therefore, the Bible, being a document, logically cannot authenticate itself. Authenticity is confirmed by the teaching authority of the Church Christ founded to promulgate His Word.
(
Even Jesus could not authenticate Himself...
In John 5:31... "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. 32 But there is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that the testimony he gives on my behalf is true."
Just so, one cannot glorify oneself, as in John 8:54... "Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.'"
In John 5:36-39 He describes His authentication... "But I have testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf."
So, Jesus was authenticated by His signs (miracles), the Father and the OT Scriptures, not by Himself. (And His authentication is one reason that only Christianity can be the one true religion.)
In this light, Scripture is authenticated not by itself, but by the Church He built on the foundation of the Apostles.
)
---
How the bible-reader interprets Scripture is based on tradition of some kind. Who among us can say that we are uninfluenced in our interpretation of Scripture? That we use Scripture alone to interpret Scripture? Indeed, in order to properly interpret Scripture accurately we NEED (unless God chooses to directly illuminate us) extra-Biblical sources (teachers, pastors, concordances, etc). Scripture alone doesn't give us the full context of itself. But by studying the ancient cultures and languages and societies, etc (necessarily from extra-biblical sources), along with Scripture, we get the proper context in which to interpret Scripture.
---
Some interpretations are based on Apostolic Tradition, other interpretations are influenced by other, newer traditions. The various heresies throughout history were deviations from Apostolic Tradition (and Scripture) and that Tradition, along with Scripture, was used to disprove heresy. Even the very Scriptures we all hold so dear became the Bible as we know it due to Tradition. (Check out AIG's article on the Canon http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/why-sixty-six. Under 'What Made a Book "Scripture"?' are 5 points, some of which ultimately rely on Tradition in order to answer a particular question concerning a given writing. I'm on a tangent here, but the article also propounds that while Jesus and the Apostles did use the Septuagint, the apocryphal writings were not a part of the version they used. That's a new idea to me. Usually non-Catholics just deny they used the Septuagint. Here's a Catholic view on the issue: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM)
---
How can one tell if the tradition of interpretation they follow is what the Apostles taught? Firstly, Pray. Nextly, look for doctrinal longevity and consistency through time and space. Take a hard look at history in general (we need to know the world in which the family and the Word of God have dwelt) and the post-Apostolic Christian writings ("Church Fathers") in particular. Study Scripture, considering the context in terms of language, literary sense, time period, society, and place.
---
I've found in my research that it is the Catholic Tradition which extends back to, and has not changed (though depth of understanding has grown) since, Apostolic times and is throughout the world. (That is why it quickly came to be called the "Universal Church"... it is everywhere and everywhen "One Faith". By the beginning of the 2nd century the term "catholic" was already in common use.) Other traditions are not as old. From the 300's to the 1500's this one, universal, Christian Church considered the same 73 writings to be Scripture. (Slightly different enumeration of the writings was used early on). And that one Christian Church interpreted Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition. Then Luther and Calvin and Zwingly decided their own private judgment to be superior to Apostolic Tradition, and eliminated or altered parts of Scripture to suit their own doctrines (notably "sola fide" and "sola scriptura").
---
Sola Scriptura has been practiced by some since the beginning of Christianity... most notably by Arius and Nestorius and long before the "Reformers". Their faith in their own private judgement in interpretation led them astray from sound doctrine, and their preaching of those errors caused other souls to be led astray from Truth. Refer to http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm.
---
With Scripture alone, a person can conclude lots of untrue things through their misinterpretation of it. The heresies of the past arose when individuals departed from the Apostolic Tradition in their Scriptural interpretations.
---
Non-Catholics typically don't realize their debt to the Catholic Church... Besides giving us the Canon of Scripture (definitively, authoritatively listing its contents for us and preserving it through persecution and barbarian invasions and the "dark ages"), it was the Catholic Church who preserved the core doctrines of Christianity through the ages (primarily, the three-person nature of God). Most Christians either don't know or conveniently ignore the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved, despite significant heretical movements (especially Arianism), only due to the efforts of the Catholic theologians and leadership. The Trinity doctrine is professed by all true Christians, yet few of them realize or give thanks to the Catholic Church for defending and preserving it. Of course, ultimately, the thanks belong to the Holy Spirit who guided the Christian leaders (specifically the pope) in preserving the doctrine. As Christ said, the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church and the Arian Heresy event is one demonstration of that. Arianism very nearly displaced the true doctrine of the Trinity but the pope stood firm (even against a majority of the bishops) by the grace of God.
---
Anti-Catholics today claim the early Christian Church was a "Bible Church" (no Traditions or traditions being followed) and there was no large-scale structured, hierarchical, corporate organization... only a spiritual-associative relationship... That the Catholic Church was a later invention and the papacy began with Constantine installing the first pope. But history contradicts that position...
In the first several centuries of Christianity there arose a number of heretical movements. (summary at http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp) Sometimes clergy, other times laymen led them. Monophysitism, monothelitism, Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, Nerstorianism, et al. These movements of flawed doctrine could happen when a guy put his own private interpretation of Scripture as superior to that of the Christian leaders (collectively known as the magisterium & pope) guided by Apostolic Tradition. These heresies were successfully combated ONLY because of the existance of a structured, heirarchical, corporate organization: The One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, which is to say the Catholic Church. The Christians of the day recognized councils of the bishops and the pope as the authority of the Christian Faith System. No other organization as such was in existance. Without an organization having authority and international jurisdiction such heresies could not be countered... There would be no authority to declare which doctrine is true and which is false. (The New Testament canon didn't exist yet, though there was a general idea of the writings people felt to be inspired... but it wasn't official, so some could use uninspired writings as inspired...)
---
Extract from http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CATHEVID.HTM ...
1. The Visible Church
The idea of a visible church is not meant to exclude
spirituality and place stress only on the organization: but
given spiritual unity, then a visible organization follows as
its embodiment and safeguard.
A common opinion, though necessary, is not sufficient:
Shakespeare lovers are not a visible body: the Shakespeare
Society is. The two further things necessary are:
(a) A central authority.
(b) Demarcation of function among properly constituted officials.
Catholicism has these things and boasts of them:
Protestantism has not and boasts of their absence, insisting
that a common opinion (and this of the vaguest sort) is
sufficient to constitute a church.
The question is, did Christ simply sow ideas, or did He also
establish a society to guard and spread them?
---
More info...
What the Vatican has said... Dei Verbum (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION)...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
The Bible and the Church: Both or Neither
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/bbl.html
Summary of Scripture and Church Fathers on the issue...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Summary of Scripture on Oral Tradition...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
The Two Canons: Scripture and Tradition
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM
On the Task of Interpreting Scripture...
http://209.61.179.205/documents/scripture/On_the_Task.pdf
Sola Scriptura in the early Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm
Private Exegesis apart from Tradition and Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/private.htm
Apostolic Succession
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm
Where We Got the Bible
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER
No comments:
Post a Comment