|
Previous Page (Part I)
Introduction - Scripture Alone or Scripture Plus Tradition? - Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible - Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word - All Scripture Is God-breathed And Completes And Fully Equips The Man Of God - The "Word of God" Also Refers to Oral Teaching
ON THIS PAGE (Part II)
Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extra Biblical Tradition
Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
Going to The Bible Hasn't Worked
The Canon
(As a reminder - TSR is the Catholic Apologetic web site called Ten-Step Refutation.
IPS (in red) is InPlainSite)
TSR - "Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions"
"Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
He shall be called a Nazarene
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture." [01]
IPS:
It is true that no Old Testament prophecy specifically stated that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. However, this is the only time that Matthew differed from his usual pattern and used the word "prophets" (plural).
and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets (Gk. propheton) "He will be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23 BSB)
In all other instances Matthew used the singular. For example,
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet (Gk. prophetou) (Matthew 1:22 BSB)
In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet (Gk. prophetou) has written: (Matthew 2:5 BSB)
James Montgomery Boice calls attention to two key observations: (Emphasis Added)
"This seems to indicate a general rather than a specific Old Testament reference.
... he replaces the verb he usually uses in such introductory formulas (‘said’) with the conjunction hoti, which means 'that.’ This is the only place such a substitution occurs in the Gospel. Matthew is probably not citing a specific Old Testament text but instead is referring only to a general teaching of Scripture. A right rendering of his words might be, 'This was to fulfill the teaching of the prophets that he would be called a Nazarene.’ [04]
Matthew saw in the obscurity of Nazareth the fulfillment of Old Testament indications of a humble and rejected Messiah. Nazareth was a despised place and "Nazarene" was a derogatory slang term. To be a Galilean or a Nazarene was an expression of contempt. Certainly no one believed that a prophet could come from Nazareth.
Aren't you also from Galilee?" they replied. "Look into it, and you will see that no prophet comes out of Galilee." (John 7:52 BSB)
Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip. (John 1:46 BSB)
In the book of Acts Paul's prosecutors spoke disparagingly of "the Nazarenes" - the Lord's followers
We have found this man to be a pestilence, stirring up dissension among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, (Acts 24:5 BSB)
TSR - Moses' seat
b. "In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down." [05]
IPS:
Actually it was not merely found in the Mishnah (Emphasis Added)
"Moses' seat" was a colloquial expression (ie. typical of ordinary or familiar language) that was understood by his listeners of that day, but the meaning is lost to most who read this passage today.
Moses' seat refers to a literal throne-like chair that sat in Jewish synagogues (where the Pharisees were the officiants) from which the religious leaders would make judgments concerning spiritual and civil matters. (One can type in "Moses' seat" into an internet search engine and find actual photos of these seats that have discovered in ancient Jewish synagogues.) These leaders do not have the authority, however, to change the word or law of Elohim - only to administer it. [06]
The crowds and His disciples He was speaking to were familiar with the seat in synagogues and understood exactly what He meant.
Matthew 23:2-3 reads
"The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
As Moses was the great teacher of the Jewish people, the scribes and Pharisees were his successors with the authority to teach the law, for which they were to be respected - not however because of their actions. They were hypocrites who did not practice what they preached which is why Jesus told His listeners 'not to do what they do'.
(These were the same leaders whom at various times Jesus called hypocrites, serpents, devils and whitewashed tombs)
TSR - The Rock
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does. [07]
IPS:
I'm sorry but the above statement is ridiculous. There were no miraculous movements of rocks. As said by Bob Deffinbaugh on bible.org
The Israelites of old also had their own "spiritual drink." This drink was the water God miraculously provided over the years which they spent in the wilderness. Jesus spoke of Himself as the source of this "water" (see John 4:7-15; 7:37-39). Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 10:4 are indeed surprising. Here, Paul identifies Christ as the "spiritual rock which followed" the Israelites in the wilderness. This is a most amazing statement.
There are any number of fantastic explanations of what Paul means. The simplest way to understand Paul is to recognize that he is not speaking of a physical rock, but of a spiritual rock. Christ was the source of the water, particularly on those occasions when Moses struck the rock. But more than this, Paul wants us to know that Christ was ever present with His people in their wilderness trek. He was there to care for His people, to meet their need for water. [08]
TSR - Jannes and Jambres
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament." [09]
IPS:
The verse in question reads,
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth. They are depraved in mind and disqualified from the faith. (2 Timothy 3:8 BSB)
Although Moses did not specifically name any of them, Paul was quite obviously referring to the Egyptian magicians - the leading men who opposed Moses in Pharaoh's court in Egypt. See Exodus 7:8-13; Exodus 7:19-23; Exodus 8:5-7; and Exodus 8:16-19.
Paul called them by name without clarification and with absolute certainty which means the names of Pharaoh's magicians were well known in the Jewish world of the time.
As Adam Clarke - commentator of yesteryear said they were named in several ancient documents
Now as Jannes these names existed in the ancient Jewish records, their own writings show. In the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on this place they are called Janis and Jambris; and in the Babylonian Talmud they are named Joanne and Mambre, and are represented as chiefs of the sorcerers of Egypt, and as having ridiculed Moses and Aaron for pretending to equal them in magical arts.
And in his Commentary Rabbi Tanchum names them Jonos and Jombrus.
If we allow the readings of the ancient editions of Pliny to be correct, he refers, in Hist. Nat., l. xxx., c. 2, to the same persons, the names being a little changed: Est et alia magices factio, a Mose et Jamne et Jotape Judaeis pendens, sed multis millibus annorum post Zoroastrem;
Read about about these two men on the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online, Copy and paste into browser https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/J/jannes-and-jambres.html
They are also mentioned in the non canonical book of Jasher. Copy and paste into browser
https://sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/79.htm
TSR - The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
The site says...
"...Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4)
...making the point that in Acts 15:6 – 0 Peter and James spoke with authority and that in the next chapter Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4)" [10]
IPS:
The original Apostles yes.
See Do Apostles Exist in The Modern Church?
TSR - Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extra Biblical Tradition
The site goes on to say the Sadducees
"essentially believed in sola scriptura" but adds that they "rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism" [11]
And
"The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura" [12]
IPS:
Actually Sola Scriptura doesn't even enter into it. Neither group followed the clear teaching of the Old Testament.
Jesus called the Pharisees and Sadducees a "brood of vipers" (Matthew 3:7), a "wicked and adulterous generation" (Matthew 16:1-5), sternly warned his disciples against the "leaven" or deceptive teaching of the Sadducees (Matthew 16:6) who had Peter and John arrested for teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. (Acts 4:1-2). Also See Acts 23:1-9.
None of this would have happened had they actually believed in and followed the teaching of the Scriptures. As Jesus told them in Matthew 22:29 they did "not know the Scriptures or the power of God".
Paul told the high priest Ananias, who had ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth, that he had violated the law by commanding that he be struck. This command was contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the law of Deuteronomy 25:1-2 that says only a man found guilty can be beaten.
Paul had not yet been found guilty of anything.
Also see how the fact that he was born a Roman citizen greatly benefited Paul in his spreading of the Gospel.
See Paul on THIS Page (Apostolic Succession)
TSR - Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
Putting forth the example of Ezra, the priest and scribe who taught Jewish law to Israel, the site says
"a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26). [13]
IPS:
I'm afraid this is incorrect. The verse clearly says the law of God was binding - not that Ezra's authority was binding. Read it for yourself
If anyone does not keep the law of your God and the law of the king, let a strict judgment be executed against him, whether death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment. (Ezra 7:26 BSB)
TSR - The Old Testament teaches about a binding Tradition
Dave Armstrong goes on to say
"The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33 - 34; Acts 8:30 - 31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16)" [14]
IPS:
These are the verse quoted.
Mark 4:33-34 reads
With many such parables Jesus spoke the word to them, to the extent that they could understand. He did not tell them anything without using a parable. But privately He explained everything to His own disciples. (Mark 4:33-34 BSB)
This does not necessarily imply that the multitude understood nothing but, by further elucidation, Jesus gave the disciples a better and more complete understanding of the point He was making which, quite obviously, was necessary considering the role they were soon to play.
Acts 8:30-31
So Philip ran up and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. "How can I,” he said, "unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31 BSB)
This is no proof that the Scriptures cannot be understood without an authorized interpreter.
Verse 27 says the man was returning from Jerusalem where he had gone to worship. Thus he was a Jew who probably knew little or nothing of Jesus which is why he asked Philip whether Isaiah was talking about himself or someone else (V. 34). The verse he was having difficulty with is
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He did not open His mouth" - In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can recount His descendants? For His life was removed from the earth."
Philip beginning with this very Scripture 'introduced' the eunuch to Jesus whom Isaiah was referring to and gave him the good news of the Gospel.
2 Peter 1:20 (along with the following verse)
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation. For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21 BSB)
Most Christians take verse 20 to mean that the prophecies that came straight from the mouth of God are not to be 'twisted' in any way or explained according to how we personally understand it.
This is not what the passage means.
The word interpretation is derived from the Greek From epiluo - explanation. [15]
Peter is saying that the authors of the New Testament did not record their own explanation of what they had heard Jesus teach and seen Him do. They did not decide what to write but, as Peter said, "were carried along by the Holy Spirit".
For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21 BSB)
See Is Private Interpretation Possible?
However, there is no question that we have twisted many Biblical texts beyond all recognition. Sadly, the list of erroneous doctrines being taught as 'Biblical' is a very long one and covers almost every major doctrine in Christianity. One can only conclude that a pre-bias drove many of the translations. What we do know is that the translators put forward what they believed to be true completely ignoring what the Scriptures actually say.
See Mishandling The Word of God
2 Peter 3:15-16
(15) Consider also that our Lord's patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. (16) He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter said nothing about an infallible interpreter of any kind, nor did he intimate that either he himself or his "successors" were authorized to interpret them for the church. So how in the world can the pope (Peter's so called successor) or the Magisterium claim to be able to expound the difficult doctrines in the writings of Paul, when even the inspired apostle Peter himself found some of them quite hard to understand.
Note: The Magisterium is the official teaching authority of the Catholic Church, consisting of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him
What the verse is getting at is that because, as Peter admitted, some things in Paul's writings were hard to understand there were those "untaught and unstable could use some of the difficulties to their own ends, twisting Scripture."
Summary
Not everyone who comes along claiming to be a teacher is accurate in what they teach. Much to the contrary MANY of them are as far from the truth as it gets... Dangerously so in many cases.
See Mishandling The Word of God
TSR - Going to The Bible Hasn't Worked
Finally, close to the end of the article the statement is made "given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn't worked". [16]
IPS
Funny! It worked pretty well for the Bereans
Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true. As a result, many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men. (Acts 17:11-12 BSB)
In fact, not going to the Bible is the major problem in today's Christian world. We do not do any research or investigation for ourselves but blindly believe and trust teachers - many of whom are dead wrong.
Actually, the early church was never without the written Word of God.
The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus' disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.
To the disciples' shock, the stranger rebuked them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?" (Luke 24:32).
The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirits coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostle's teaching, Jewish Christians rediscovered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus' life, teaching, death, and resurrection.
The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God. [17]
The Old Testament 'always' existed providing the foundation for the rest of the building that first existed in the teachings of the Apostles then as they put quill to parchment.
So just when were the Gospels written? Certainly not the couple of hundred years after the events as some critics claim. In fact we can date the gospels to within 20-30 years after Jesus died and was resurrected. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written within 20-30 years of the Cross, and that the letters of Paul were largely complete before that time.
See Dating: When Was The New Testament Written?
The Canon
Finally one other objection brought up on another Catholic web site is "the problem of the canon of the New Testament"
"If Scripture is our only source of revelation, then how can we know which books belong in Scripture (to make things easier, we are just going to focus on the New Testament, but the problem applies to the Old Testament as well)? There is no divinely inspired table of contents, and Jesus did not leave us a list of books that belong in our Bibles. Consequently, if Scripture is all we can go by, then how can we know which early Christian writings belong in the New Testament and which do not? [18]
The canon of Scripture was not created but discerned by recognizing and acknowledging that which was also 'God breathed'. Inspired Scripture was canon the moment quill was put to parchment and was recognized as such. Thus whether they knew it or not, the role of the various church councils was merely to publicly recognize the canon.
As so well said by Dennis Rupert...
"...a book did not become inspired by being included in the canon. Rather inclusion in the canon was merely recognition of the authority that the book already possessed from God. It is a little bit like an purple elephant walking into the room and us deciding that "Yes, indeed! That's a purple elephant and he is in the room." We did not make him a purple elephant and we did not put him in the room -- we merely recognize what is obvious.
The canon of Scripture was NOT formed by the declaration of a church council any more than Isaac Newton created the law of gravity. Rather, as written revelation came from God through God's chosen writers, the people of God recognized God's voice and affirmed that the writing was indeed the word of God.
Jesus said, "His sheep follow Him because they know his voice" (John 10:4). The people of God knew the Word of God when they heard it and read it and, as a result, the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were recognized and collected into the canon". [19]
Inspired Scripture was canon the moment pen was put to parchment and was recognized as such
See Two Part Article The Canon of Scripture
Having said that, it is pointless to embark on a investigation unless one is prepared to set aside one's preconceived ideas, denominational presuppositions, experiences etc. and rely strictly on what the Word says. For the thousands who 'believe' one thing, there are thousands who deny it. SOMEONE is wrong.
Unless we are willing to find out what the Bible actually says, we are never going to affirm God's truth on the matter. Gullibility and spirituality are not synonymous.
See Mishandling The Word of God
End Notes
[01] Dave Armstrong. A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
[02] https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/2-23.htm
[03] https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1-22.htm
[04] James Montgomery Boice. Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. https://bible.org/book/export/html/6313
[05] Dave Armstrong. A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
[06] Midrash with Natan Lawrence. What is Moses' seat and should we follow the modern rabbinic Jews? https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/2016/12/14/what-is-moses-seat/
[07] Dave Armstrong. A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
[08] Bob Deffinbaugh. Bible.org. Lessons From the Present and the Past (1 Corinthians 9:24-10:10)
[09] Dave Armstrong. A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
[10] ibid.
[11] ibid.
[12] ibid.
[13] ibid.
[14] ibid.
[15] https://biblehub.com/greek/1955.htm
[16] Dave Armstrong. A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
[17] James G. McCarthy. Sola Scriptura. https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3256551/posts?page=408
[18] JP Nunez. Why We Don't Believe in Sola Scriptura. https://catholicstand.com/why-we-dont-believe-in-sola-scriptura/
[19] Dennis Rupert, Who Decided What Books Got Into The Bible?
http://www.new-life.net/faqs/biblical-questions/who-decided-what-books-got-into-the-bible/
|
