I got an email titled "Roman Catholicism is NOT Biblical Christianity." My question is:
Is Bible-alone Protestantism Biblical Christianity?
The answer is no. Bible-alone Protestantism isn't found in the Bible:
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According
to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings
found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is
no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For
them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a
Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By
Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture,
especially St. Paul's Letters.
The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:
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 perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good
work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]
According to those that hold this
belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching"
and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer
examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not
prove this teaching.
Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian
doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching"
the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But
this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching
the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for
good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would
starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in
learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred
Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.
St.
Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect,
equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing
the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb,
"practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does
not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill.
Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports,
practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and
good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a
Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even
though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger,
no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth.
Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St.
Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim.
3:14-15).
Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]
Here
St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing
from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes,
"knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom"
himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul
actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "what you have heard
from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able
to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching
the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden
opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the
"official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies
on Timothy's childhood tradition:
...and how from childhood you
have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which
are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2
Tim. 3:15, RSV]
Even though profitable in instructing for
salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which
Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's
guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define
the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17
presuppose Tradition.
Verse 15 brings up the problem of
canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries
the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other
religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books
of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection
was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often
cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as
Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th
century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New
Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible."
Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was
hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not
accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the
problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely
and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St.
Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the
Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did
not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition
(CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone
teaching.
As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old
Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after
Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the
Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If
verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians,
then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:
I
have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren,
that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of
you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6,
RSV]
This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns
against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a
problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually
there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are
being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may
refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9
& 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that
Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of
the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New
Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This
causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.
Bible
verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but
not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also
promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not
condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees.
Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition
the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth"
beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters.
Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God"
(Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory
must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral
teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not
seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no
Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now
these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve
their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written
96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D.
Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible
manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part
of Scripture.
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the
word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
[1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from
corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not
found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the
Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since
this is one teaching not found in Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIHIL OBSTAT:
Reverend John T. Folda, S.T.L.
Censor Librorum
IMPRIMATUR:
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D.
Bishop of Lincoln
November 7, 1997
The
NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or a
pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is
contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and
IMPRIMATUR agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.
______________________________________
A Catholic Response, Inc.
P.O. Box 84272
Lincoln, NE 68501-4272
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:og0xKFxLIz8J:users.binary.net/polycarp/stpaul.html+bible+alone+is+not+taught+in+the+Bible+itself.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as
well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and
the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Comments