Catholicism and Protestantism differ fundamentally in consideration of the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition: The Bible in one hand, and historical doctrines and dogmas in the other. Protestantism tends to see a certain dichotomy, or dividing line, between the pure Word of God in the Bible and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which is considered to be too corrupted by “arbitrary traditions of men” (in this sense Matthew 15:3-6, Mark 7:8-13, and Colossians 2:8) (1). For Protestants, Scripture alone (or, as the Reformers claimed, sola Scriptura) is the origin and rule of the Christian faith. In this way, it is superior to, and judges, all Tradition. It is sufficient in and of itself to give us a complete exposition of Christianity and for the attainment of salvation.(2)

It must be kept in mind that the concept of sola scriptura is not in principle opposed to the importance and validity of Church history, Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, or the authority of the Church Fathers and prominent theologians. The difference lies in the relative position of authority maintained by Scripture and the institutions and decrees of the Church. In theory, the Bible judges everything else, since, for the evangelical Protestant, only it is infallible and the Church, the Popes and the Councils are not.(3)

Today, however, this belief has not led to doctrinal uniformity, as the history of Protestant sectarianism abundantly testifies. The prevalence of sola Scriptura, according to Catholic thought, has facilitated a very widespread ignorance and contempt for the history of the Church among ordinary Protestants.(4) Protestantism is clearly much less historically oriented than Catholicism, largely due to the reasons cited above. Recently, several Protestant scholars have candidly criticized the weakness of either concept, be it sola Scriptura, or also the extreme version of what could be called only the bible (virtually a total exclusion from the history and authority of the Church).(6)

While Protestantism approaches this issue and many other theological ideas with an “either/or” attitude, Catholicism has a “both/and” perspective. In this way, Scripture and Tradition are inextricably linked: two sides of the same coin of revelation.(7)

Tradition is defined as the transmission of beliefs and practices both in writing and by oral means.(8) The Bible is part of a Tradition that is larger than itself, of which it is, if we can say that, a encapsulation or crystallization.The first Christians preached; they did not hand out New Testaments (most of the NT had not yet been written, much less established in its final form). Catholicism affirms that its Tradition is neither more nor less than the preservation of the teaching of Christ as it was revealed and proclaimed by the Apostles. There is a development, but only in the sense of an increase in understanding, not in the essence, of this Apostolic Tradition. Catholicism claims to be the guardian and custodian of the original deposit of faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).(10)

It should also be noted that the written word and the enormous mass of literature have only been widely spread since the invention of the printing press around 1440. Thus, that written word could not have been the primary transmitter of the gospel for at least fourteen centuries. Christians prior to the time of the Protestant Reformation learned primarily through homilies, sacraments, the liturgy and its annual calendar, Christian festivals, devotional practices, family instruction, ecclesial architecture, and other types of sacred art that reflected biblical themes. For all those believers, sola scriptura at first glance it would have been an absurd abstraction that was impossible to put into practice.

Evidence in the New Testament about Tradition

Tradition, even in the broad Catholic sense, permeates Scripture. Only a prior prejudice against such a notion or an undue fixation on Christ’s rejection of the corrupt Pharisaic human traditions, could blind someone to the considerable force of the scriptural data. In other words, Scripture does not teach the sola Scriptura, a concept that is based on the use of a document (the Bible) contrary to what the document itself testifies explicitly and implicitly. Or, to put it even another way, Scripture should only lead the impartial seeker toward Tradition and the Church, rather than a contempt for that Tradition. G. K. Chesterton called Tradition the “democracy of the dead.” It is absurd for any Christian to disdain what God has taught millions of other Christians throughout the centuries

We should try to avoid as much as possible approaching Scripture with a philosophy that is not biblical in itself, and not force Scripture (and Christianity) into our own mold. The Bible itself has a lot to say about the vis-a-vis between its own authority and that of Tradition and the Church.

Not everything is included in the Bible

In the New Testament, first of all, we find very clear testimony to the fact that the Scripture does not completely contain the teaching of Christ. Presumably no one would deny this, but Protestants tend to deny that any of His teachings not recorded in Scripture could have been faithfully transmitted orally by the early apostolic tradition. Reflection on the closeness of Jesus to his disciples and on the nature of human relationships and memory makes such a fanciful idea quite dubious. Who could make the claim that the apostles remembered (or communicated to others) absolutely nothing except what we have in the four Gospels?

One can compare the Bible with the Constitution of one’s country, which is not alien to the constitutional laws that derive from it nor is it possible to be put into practice without judges to interpret it. The analogy is not perfect but it helps us get an idea of ​​the matter.

None of the comments in this chapter, this should be made very clear, are intended to denigrate Scripture but rather to place it in its proper context within the living Christian community (the Church) and accept it on its own terms. It seems that any time the Catholic argues that the Bible is not the all and the end of the Christian faith, he is accused of despising the Word of God, etc., etc. This is one of the most unfortunate and false Protestant dichotomies, which will be dispelled in the course of our examination of Scripture.

Mark 4:33 And he announced the Word to them with many parables like these…

In other words, as is understood, many parables are not recorded in Scripture

Mark 6:34 ...and he began to teach them many things.

None of these many things is reflected there

John 16:12 I still have a lot to tell you, but you can’t handle it now.

Maybe this a lot was spoken during his appearances after the Resurrection, alluded to in Acts 1:2-3 (see below). Very few of these teachings have been recorded in writing, and those that have, contain only minimal details.

John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of the disciples that are not written in this book.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did. If they were written one by one, I think that not even the whole world would be enough to contain the books that would be written.

Acts 1:2-3…to the apostles …To these same people, after his passion, he appeared, giving them many proofs that he lived, appearing to them for forty days and speaking to them about the Kingdom of God. (see also Luke 24:16-16, 25-27)

Paradosis (“Tradition”)

The most important Greek word in the New Testament for the matter we are considering is paradosis, or literally, “tradition.”It is used four times as a Christian tradition. We will examine each of these passages.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because in all things you remember me and preserve the traditions as I have transmitted them to you.

Colossians 2:8 Take care that no one enslaves you through the vain fallacy of a philosophy, founded on human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.

Paradosis It simply means something that goes from hand to hand or that passes from person to person. This “tradition” can be bad (Matthew 15:2ff, Colossians 2:8) and opposed to the will of God (Mark 7:8ff), or entirely good as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and in many passages that we will see below. This distinction must be constantly kept in mind in the debate about the usefulness and convenience of Tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ...stand firm and preserve the traditions that you have learned from us, by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 ...that you separate yourself from every brother who lives disorderly and not according to the tradition that you received from us.

Tradition in the Bible can be written or oral. It implies that the writer (Saint Paul in the examples above) is not expressing his own peculiar views, but is delivering a message received from another (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 11:23). The importance of tradition does not lie in its shape but in its content.

“Word of God” / “Word of the Lord”

When the phrases Word of God or word of the Lord appear in Acts and the Epistles, they almost always refer to the oral preaching, not to Scripture. The Greek word used is logos, which is the title of Jesus himself in John 1:1 (…the Word was God). Of course, this is true of the entire Bible, as a general rule. Protestants, unfortunately, tend to think of “written word” whenever they see word in Scripture, but even common sense tells us that in Spanish “word” also refers to spoken expressions. The latter is a more dominant and common theme than the former. Much of Scripture is a remembrance of what was originally oral proclamation (e.g., the Ten Commandments, all of Christ’s teaching—since He wrote nothing—Peter’s sermon at Pentecost). Therefore, the oral component of Christianity is not avoided, and any position that attempts to do so is self-defeating in advance.

Tradition according to Jesus Christ & Saint Paul

Colossians 2:8 (see above) has often been used by evangelical Protestants (especially fundamentalists) to condemn both philosophy and tradition, but it offers no support for either position. Because Saint Paul is here contrasting the traditions and philosophies of men with those of Christ. He is not condemning those things in essence, but rather, its form corrupt.We have seen how Saint Paul uses the same word “tradition” positively on three occasions.

Likewise, Jesus uses paradosis to condemn the corrupt human traditions of the Pharisees (Matthew 15:3,6, Mark 7:8-9,13), not Apostolic Tradition per se, since to do so would contradict St. Paul’s use of that very word, as well as his own defense of true Jewish teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. Note also that in the previous examples, Jesus distinguishes the word “tradition” in each case by saying your traditions or traditions of men, as Saint Paul does in Colossians 2:8. When Saint Paul speaks of Apostolic Tradition, he does not distinguish that term at all.

Paradidomi (“Deliver”)

A related word, paradidomi, is used with reference to Christian Tradition, in the sense of “deliver” (or “transmit”), at least seven times:

Luke 1:1-2 Since many have tried to narrate in an orderly manner the things that have happened among us, just as they have been transmitted to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning…

Saint Luke is saying that those traditions given, or transmitted, are not mere fables, legends, myths or anything similar, but were reliable accounts of eyewitnesses. Here we also have both oral and written sources, with the predominant factor of memory at this point.

1st Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I transmitted to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread,

(see also 1 Corinthians 11:2, Romans 6:17)

1 Corinthians 15:3 Because I transmitted to you, first of all, what I received in my turn: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,

It is compelling how here Tradition and Scripture are a unified Revelation, as stated in Catholic teaching. True Tradition can never contradict Scripture, but rather complement it, explain it, and develop upon it.

2nd Peter 2:21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the path of justice than, once known, to turn back from the holy precept that was transmitted to them.

Jude 3 ...fight for the faith that has been transmitted to the saints once and for all.

Paralambano (“Received”)

the word paralambano (“received”) appears at least seven times in connection with Christian or Apostolic Tradition. In this way, there are three related concepts: tradition or doctrine that is given or literally “hand-delivered” and the acts of deliver and receive the tradition:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 …the Gospel that I preached to you, that you have received and in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you keep it just as I preached it to you… Otherwise, you would have believed in vain!

(see also above 1 Corinthians 11:23 and 15:3)

Note the reference to memory: the entire meaning of the passage is about an oral gospel and tradition transmitted by preaching and preserved by memory.

Galatians 1:9,12 ...If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be accursed!…for I did not receive it nor did I learn it from any man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ.

This sounds a lot like the anathema statements of the Council of Trent, which are so unacceptable to many. Here Saint Paul completely dissociates the gospel that he received (which he equates elsewhere with tradition) from traditions derived from men. True Tradition originates entirely from above – this It is the Tradition of which Catholicism claims to have been merely the Custodian for nearly 2000 years. The following passage reiterates this:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 ...upon receiving (you) You accepted the Word of God that we preached to you, not as the word of man, but as it truly is, as the Word of God.

(see also 2 Thessalonians 3:6 above)

“Tradition” / “Gospel” / “Word of God” Synonyms

It is obvious from the biblical data indicated above that the concepts of tradition, gospel, and Word of God (as well as other terms) are essentially synonyms. All are predominantly oral, and all are referred to as something being delivered and received:

  • 1 Corinthians 11:2…you preserve the traditions…just as I have transmitted them to you
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:15 …preserve the traditions…you have learned…by word of mouth or by letter
  • 2 Thessalonians 3:6 …the tradition that you received from us
  • 1 Corinthians 15:1 …the Gospel…that you have received
  • Galatians 1:9 …the gospel..that you have received
  • 1 Thessalonians 2:9 …we proclaim to you the Gospel of God
  • Acts 8:14 …Samaria had accepted the Word of God
  • 1 Thessalonians 2:13 …upon receiving the Word of God that we preach to you
  • 2nd Peter 2:21 …of the holy precept that was transmitted to them
  • Jude 3 …the faith that has been transmitted to the saints once and for all

Only in the two epistles of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians can we see that three of those terms are used interchangeably. It is clear then that tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for Saint Paul. If, on the other hand, someone wants to maintain that this is so, then gospel and Word of God They are also bad words!Thus, the “commonly-mentioned dichotomy” between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical in itself and must be discarded by the “truly biblical-oriented person” as (ironic enough!) a corrupt men’s tradition.

The Oral Tradition according to Saint Paul

In his two epistles to Timothy, St. Paul makes some fascinating assertions about the importance of oral tradition:

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Have as a rule the sound words that you heard from me in faith…Preserve the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust it to faithful men, who will be able, in turn, to instruct others.

Saint Paul says that Timothy should not only receive and have as a norm their words, in addition to its instructions written, but you also have to teach others the same. The Catholic Church stands to do this in consideration of the entire “Deposit of Faith” (or teaching of the apostles -Acts 2:42-), according to Saint Paul

The Church, Not Scripture, Column & Bulwark of Truth

If almost any educated evangelical Protestant is asked to define, according to the Bible, what is the pillar and foundation of truth, would surely respond: “the Bible itself, of course.”But yet the Scripture does not pronounce it that way;declares, in perfect agreement with Catholicism and in opposition to sola Scriptura:

…the Church of the living God, pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

Other Bible translations render “foundation” as bulwark, bastion, or pillar.

Two Proof Texts on Sola Scriptura brought to light

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for arguing, for correcting, and for educating in righteousness; Thus the man of God is perfect and prepared for every good work.

This is the most commonly used so-called proof text to support the sola Scriptura – even though it can be strongly argued that this text teaches no such thing. John Henry Cardinal Newman (!801-1890), the brilliant Englishman who converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism, shows the fallacy of such reasoning:

It is quite evident that this passage does not provide any argument that Holy Scripture, without Tradition, is the only rule of faith;because although the Holy Scripture is useful for these purposes, however it is not said to be enough. The Apostle demands the help of Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Furthermore, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures that Timothy had learned in his childhood. Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in its infancy: some of the Catholic Epistles had not even been written when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed in the canon of the books of Scripture. He refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Ancient Testament, and if the argument of this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, namely, that the Scriptures of New Testament were not necessary for the rule of faith. It is very necessary to emphasize that this passage does not provide any proof of the inspiration of several of the books of Holy Scripture, even those that are admitted as such… because we are not told… what the books or portions of the Scripture are. inspired writing.(11)

In addition to these logical and historical arguments, one can disagree with the Protestant interpretation of this passage on exegetical, analogical, and contextual grounds. Already in 2nd Timothy (context) we see that Saint Paul refers to Oral Tradition three times (1:13-4, 2:2, 3:14). In the previous verses, Saint Paul speaks of tradition, keeping in mind who you learned it from.The personal reference proves that he is not speaking about Scripture, but about himself as, so to speak, the tradition bearer.In some other places (exegesis), Saint Paul frequently adopts the Oral Tradition (Romans 6:!7, 1 Corinthians 11:2,23, 15:1-3, Galatians 1:9,12, Colossians 2:8, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning used by Protestant apologists looks especially “cracked” here. For example, let’s examine a very similar passage using analogous reasoning; Ephesians 4:11-15:

Ephesians 4:11-15 He himself gave some to be apostles;to others, prophets;to others, evangelizers;to others, pastors and teachers, for the right ordering of the saints in order to the functions of the ministry, for the edification of the Body of Christ, until we all reach the unity of faith and full knowledge of the Son of God, to the state of perfect man, to the maturity of the fullness of Christ.

If the Greek artios (perfect in the BJ and in the RV60) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2nd Timothy, then teleios (perfect in the BJ and in the RV60) would also prove the sufficiency of the pastors, teachers, etc, for the achievement of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is rightly ordered, built up and brought to unity and maturity, the knowledge of Jesus, the fullness of Christ and even preserved from doctrinal confusion through the teaching of the Church. This is, by far, an assertion about the perfection of the saints stronger than that given in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, even though it stops short of mentioning Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all non-biblical elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is much more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive and complementary way, recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in either passage does not mean that those elements are nonexistent. This way. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic point of view. Neither passage is used in an exclusivist sense.

1 Corinthians 4:6 ...so that you can learn from us that: “Do not go beyond what is written” and so that no one becomes conceited in favor of one against another.

The clause highlighted in bold, which is used as a test for the sola Scriptura, is one of the most difficult in Greek, so much so that a Protestant translator, James Moffatt, considered it so complicated that he refused to translate it!Despite that, the meaning seems pretty clear when the entire context (at least verses 3-6) is taken into consideration. This basic principle of biblical interpretation (context) is often abandoned, even by good scholars, presumably due to prior prejudices. For example, the great evangelical theologian GK Berkouwer, who says many edifying things about Scripture, falls victim to this tendency repeatedly when he uses this portion of a verse to suggest the notion of sola Scriptura, in his magan work on Scripture.(12)

One has simply to read the phrase that follows the “proof text” to see what St. Paul is meaning. The entire passage is a ethical exhortation to avoid pride, arrogance and favoritism, and in this way, has nothing to do with the idea of ​​the Bible and the written word as some kind of global standard of authority above the Church.

In any case, St. Paul’s teaching everywhere (as we have just seen) excludes such an interpretation. One of the basic theses of Protestant hermeneutics is to interpret the less clear and obscure portions of Scripture through clearer related passages.(13) Paul is telling the Corinthians to observe the broad ethical precepts of the Old Testament (some translators render that clause as stay within the rules), as indicated by his usual phrase, it is written, which is always used to precede quotes from the Old Testament in all his epistles. Assuming that he is referring to the Old Testament (such is the most direct interpretation), this would, again, prove too much, because he would not be including the entire New Testament, whose canon was not determined until 397 AD.

In summary, then, 1 Corinthians 4:6 (or rather, a part of that verse) fails as a proof text for the sola Scriptura for at least three reasons:

1) The context is clearly about aspects ethical. We cannot transgress, going beyond, the precepts of Scripture regarding personal relationships. This does not prohibit the discussion of ethical aspects out of what appears in Scripture (which by itself cannot possibly address all possible disputes or discussions about ethics);

2) The phrase does not have to refer necessarily to Scripture, although it seems that that is the majority opinion of scholars (with which I agree);

3) Yes what is written refers to Scripture, it certainly points only to the Old Testament (obviously not to the Protestant “rule of faith”). In this way, this verse proves too much and too little at the same time.

All “proof texts” for the sola Scriptura They are demonstrably inadequate and clash against biblical (and Catholic) teachings about Tradition and the Church, as well as against the insurmountable difficulty of the canon of the Bible, and how it was established (by the Catholic Church).

Cardinal Newman, as insightful as ever, gets right to the heart of the matter in the following critique of Protestant claims to sola Scriptura:

The Scripture is the Rule of Faith is in fact a presumption so typical of the mentality and way of thinking among Protestants, that to them it seems more like a truism than a simple reality. When they are in controversy with Catholics about some point of faith, they all ask at once Where do you find that in Scripture? and if Catholics respond, as they must, that it does not need to be in Scripture for it to be true, nothing will be able to dissuade them that such an answer is neither an evasion nor a triumph for them. Although it is by no means evident that all religious truth is in a number of works, however sacred, which were written at different times, and did not always form a book;in fact, that is a very difficult doctrine to prove…It is a presumption so deeply established in the popular sentiment of Protestants that it is a very difficult task to obtain from them a recognition that it is a presumption.(14)

Author: Dave Armstrong

 

Footnotes.

  • 1. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 ed., Book IV, ch.10; Berkouwer, G.C., Studies in Dogmatics: Holy Scripture, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975, tr.from Dutch ed.of 1967 by Jack B. Rogers, pp.299-300,306; Marty, Martin, A Short History of Christianity, NY: Meridian, 1959, p.216.
  • 2. Calvin, ibid., Book I, ch.6-9; Pinnock, Clark, Biblical Revelation, Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, pp.113-17.
  • 3. Luther, Martin, On the Councils and the Churches, 1539; Sproul, RC, “Sola Scriptura: Crucial to Evangelicalism,” in Boice, James Montgomery, ed., The Foundation of Biblical Authority, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978, p.109; Brown, Robert McAfee, The Spirit of Protestantism, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, p.67.
  • 4. Pinnock, ibid., pp.118-119;brown, ibid., pp.215-216.
  • 5. Berkouwer, ibid., pp.268-271,286,305;brown, ibid., p.171; Marty, ibid., p.206.
  • 6. Ramm, Bernard, “Is ‘Scripture Alone’ the Essence of Christianity?,” in Rogers, Jack B., ed., Biblical Authority, Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977, pp.116-17,119,121-2.
  • 7. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Liguori, MO: Liguori Pub., 1994, #80; Hardon, John A., The Catholic Catechism (CC), Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975, pp.47-48.
  • 8. CCC, #81,83; Hardon, John A., Pocket Catholic Dictionary, NY: Doubleday Image, 1980, p.437.
  • 9. CCC, #82.
  • 10. CCC, #84; Hardon, DC, pp.41-43.
  • 11. Newman, John Henry Cardinal, “Essay on Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation,” London: 1884, Essay 1, section 29. Emphasis in original. In Newman, On the Inspiration of Scripture, ed. J. Derek Holmes and Robert Murray, Washington, DC, Corpus Books, 1967, p.131.
  • 12. Berkouwer, ibid., pp.17,104-5,148.
  • 13. See, eg, Ramm, Bernard, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 3rd ed., 1970, pp.104-106.
  • 14. Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Grammar of Assent, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1955 (orig. 1870), p.296.