Our Lord after his resurrection and before He ascended to heaven called together the disciples on a hill in Galilee and told them to teach all nations. Christ instructed them to teach all the doctrines, commandments and laws that He had taught to them. It is significant to note that these instructions are not constricted by the lifetimes of the disciples but was to be taught for all times which would be completed at the Parousia. This meant that the disciples were to have successors and that their oral teaching would be for all times protected by Christ which extended to their successors. In this way Christ assured that truth would be taught for all time to humanity. This was the great commission.
To those deep in Scriptures it seems quite odd that there are some who think that the disciples fulfilled their commission given to all by writing Scriptures and that they left no successors to continue the fullness of truth and the authority given by Christ in that commission. If this was the intent of our Lord it is odd that not all the disciples did what some suppose our Lord commanded which is to write Scriptures. In fact, only five disciples continued their teaching by writing Scripture. To those who believe that it is the Scriptures that continue the great commission then it is difficult to ignore that less than half of the disciples followed Christ’s commission. The disciple Matthew wrote a Gospel. John wrote a Gospel and three epistles. Peter wrote two epistles and James and Jude wrote one apiece. If the written Word was so important in Christ’s structure of the Church then it would be logical that there would be at least one epistle from Jesus; perhaps in which He would instruct us to give the written Word His only authority and not the 12 disciples as was His instructions in the great commission. But of course, it was obviously not His intent for His teaching to be spread only from written means but instead through the solid foundation He had built on which the disciples would continue to build with their successors which passed on the chrism from Christ through the disciples and their successors which has resulted in infallible truth for all times.
Another oddity for those who believe only in the written Word is why the Church founded by Christ existed for only a half century as a teaching Church and then is replaced by inspired books alone?
With changing circumstances it would seem reasonable that there be someone or some authority that can apply the apostolic teaching to the change of circumstances lest there be chaotic frustration instead of the application of truth. Take for example the doctrines; these doctrines may be studied with an almost equal danger of error as truth if there is no infallible teacher. An infallible authority would not restrict an enlightened development of truth for those who are seeking the question of what Christ meant in His teaching. Without it there is great possibility and indeed a certainty of error because there is not a word of Christ’s teaching that has not been subject to diverse interpretations. Many of these interpretations are compelling either by their scholarship or their application but are in contradiction of one another. Consequently the following question is illustrated by these facts; how are we to know the truth as these words surly are not enough for the truth to be known? Therefore it is necessary to have an infallible teacher to separate the diversity of opinions into the truth of Christ’s teaching. There must be revelation to satisfy the seeking soul instead of a growing set of diverse opinions and confusion. So, there must be an infallible teacher with the authority from Christ and of Christ as were the disciples for the truth to be known. The question is to those following Sola Scripture is whether the truth is essential or does it remain forever elusive depending on individual interpretation?
I believe the Scriptures demonstrate just how essential Jesus believed the truth to be. Before His death He gave certain men the authority to teach. He sent out the 72 disciples to teach with His authority. He said to them as well as the original 12, “He that hears you, hears me” which illustrates a transfer of the teaching by oral means to the Church across time to ensure the truth to all generations. It is through the oral teaching that the truth is found by the authority of Christ for truth. That truth is contained within the leadership of the Church and is today the Magisterium which is made up of the successors of those original disciples continuing the chrism given to them by Christ. God bless!
Fr. Joseph
Thanks Fr. Joseph, I also liked the reading last week. Happy Thanksgiving.
ReplyDeletePatrick
You've said it better than I ever could, Father Joseph, so, I'll just say, "I couldn't have said it better myself". I truly appreciate your work here. I pray God always blesses you. Mike.
ReplyDeletePaul VI on Scripture
ReplyDeletehttp://kingofages.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/paul-vi-on-the-historic-accuracy-of-the-gospels/
For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings.
ReplyDeleteWe know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.
"For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible."
DeleteThis is not true. The Church considers the Bible to be Sacred Tradition.
"This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority.
None of these are contradictory to Scriptures so your argument is a non-sequitor.
"Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings."
Where did Martin Luther get the authority to do such a thing?
"We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition."
Certainly the Scriptures are true , authoritative and reliable as is all of Sacred Tradition.
"Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture."
Traditions are based on the teaching of Jesus and not on what was written later and canonized by the Church. It is the Church that has the authority of teaching and this authority was exercised in the recognition of the biblical Canon for the Christian faith. The New Testament is base on the Church and not the other way around.
"Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith".
I agree and that is why the Protestant sects are not of God as they reject the sound doctrine of the Church and instead seek out false teachers who satisfy their itching ears just as was prophesied. Calvinism is just one of many examples of Protestant error.
"That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice."
Unfortunately for your false hypothesis the Bible states that the authority is the Church and not the product of the Church which is the Bible inspired by God.
God bless!
In Christ
Fr. Joseph
On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).
Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.
The training of the clergy followed the training that Jesus gave to His disciples. The Bishops took on disciples that learned under the tutelage of one who had been a disciple of another. By the 3rd century great Theological schools were training clergy like the School in Alexandria and in Antioch. The Church did teach the Scriptures from the beginning. Also the Scriptures were painstakingly copied by scribes to be as accurate as possible. But, the congregations of the Church were led by the divine authority that was given to the Church which is the leadership in apostolic succession and not the written Word alone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that unbiblical traditions would have been a potential problem but there is not an instance that any tradition has ever been contradictory to Scripture. I do not understand how you can claim that unbiblical traditions are a problem when there never were any. NO there has never been nor will there ever be any doctrine taught by the Church that is contradictory to Scriptures. That is impossible as such a premise destroys not only the veracity of Scripture but also the veracity of Christ. Christ said that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. If what you said is true then Jesus lied. If the Church is not the pillar and foundation of the truth as the Bible states then the Bible is false teaching. Are you sure that you want to support such a conclusion that the Church indeed makes Jesus a liar and the Bible false as there is no other conclusion that can be arrived at if what you state is true. But, of course, your claim is false and Jesus and the Bible maintains their veracity. The Bible itself defies your conclusions. God bless!
In Christ
Fr. Joseph