![\"Cover](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2011\/10\/Cover-551x833.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n***<\/p><\/div>\n
***<\/p><\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n
This is the same weak, silly argument that we hear again and again. The gist of it is that, for many Protestants, \u201ctradition is a dirty word.\u201d But the Bible presents it in a far more nuanced way than this portrayal would have it. In the Bible there is a legitimate apostolic, divine tradition, that is good, and a false \u2018tradition of men\u201d over against God. St. Paul contrasts the two in the following passage:<\/p>\n
Colossians 2:8<\/b> (RSV) See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Phil 4:9; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The particular sense being used is always clear from context. Hence, in two of Whitaker\u2019s examples above, we see the qualifiers: \u201cyour <\/i>traditions\u201d (i.e., over against God\u2019s); \u201ccommandments of men<\/i>\u201d (i.e., ones that contradict<\/i> the commandments of God).<\/p>\n
Galatians 1:14, on the other hand, is a more neutral expression. It\u2019s clear that Paul did not reject all <\/i>traditions in Judaism. After all, he referred to himself as a \u201cPharisee\u201d twice, after<\/i> his conversion to Christianity\u00a0 (Acts 23:6; 26:5). He still acknowledged the authority of the high priest as his \u201cruler\u201d during his trial, even when the latter had him struck on the mouth (Acts 23:2-5). Paul and Jesus and the early Christians still participated in Temple worship and rituals, and attended synagogues. When addressing non-Christian Jews, Paul calls them \u201cbrethren\u201d (Acts 13:26,38; 22:1; 23:1,5-6).<\/p>\n
St. Stephen did the same before a council with Jewish elders, scribes, and the high priest (Acts 6:12; 7:1), addressing them as \u201cbrethren and fathers\u201d (7:2). Paul was still worshiping and even presiding over <\/span>the services in synagogues (Acts 13:13-44).<\/p>\n
Bellarmine hath but one reply, namely, that Christ and the apostles did not condemn those traditions which the Jews had received from Moses and the prophets, but those which they had received from certain later persons, whereof some were idle, and some impious. (p. 638)
\n*<\/div>\nAnd St. Robert Bellarmine was exactly right, because this is what Scripture teaches, and it is almost self-evident.<\/p>\n
I answer: Firstly, it is false that the Jews received any traditions from Moses and the prophets. He himself does not prove they did, . . . (p. 638)
\n*<\/div>\nThis is a remarkably clueless, extreme anti-traditional position that virtually no Protestant theologian, Bible scholar, or historian would hold today. It is well-known that the Pharisees accepted the oral tradition, and that early Christianity inherited several beliefs (angelology, the resurrection, notions of purgatory and prayer for the dead), including belief in this oral tradition, from that school.<\/p>\n
Finally, it is evident from the scriptures: for Christ says, \u201cSearch the scriptures,\u201d not tradition; and Abraham says, \u201cThey have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.\u201d Now by Moses and the prophets the scriptures are meant, as in Luke xxiv. 27. There is no mention in scripture of these traditions: the scriptures say not a single word about them: there were, therefore, none. (p. 638)
\n*<\/div>\nWhitaker essentially puts his head in the sand like an ostrich, and covers his eyes and ears like a monkey: he refuses<\/i> to see the dozens; scores of biblical indications of tradition. He\u2019s like the man who can look all over the sky on a clear day at high noon in the summer, and not see the sun. It\u2019s such a breathtakingly ridiculous position that I feel like a clown seriously entertaining it at all. But this paragraph of Whitaker\u2019s needed to be documented, lest no one believe that it could have been written by an intelligent student of the Bible. I\u2019m embarrassed for my esteemed Protestant friends, that one of their proclaimed \u201cchampions\u201d would make such utterly ludicrous \u201carguments.\u201d But this is the pathetic intellectual level of anti-Catholicism. I shouldn\u2019t be surprised.<\/p>\n
. . . when Christ objects the commandment of God, and opposes the scriptures to tradition, it is plain that he condemns all unwritten traditions. . . .<\/span> all unwritten traditions are condemned by Christ. (p. 639)
\n*<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s not plain at all that this is the case! Jesus qualifies it by noting that mere men<\/i>\u2018s traditions, held in opposition to God, are what should be condemned. If it were a blanket<\/i> condemnation, the qualification wouldn\u2019t be there; it would simply say \u201ctradition.\u201d If Jesus were supposedly completely opposed to all Jewish tradition at all (which included oral tradition); even tradition within Christianity, then why in the world would He say?:<\/p>\n
Matthew 23:2-3a<\/b> \u201cThe scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses\u2019 seat; [3<\/b>] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Even \u201cMoses\u2019 Seat\u201d is not a phrase found in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of \u201cteaching succession\u201d from Moses on down is taught. <\/span><\/span>Jesus upholds the Pharisees\u2019 teaching authority even though He goes on to say that they are hypocrites, and to not follow what they \u201cdo,\u201d and lambasts them in no uncertain terms, shortly afterwards, according to Matthew\u2019s record. Despite all that, their teachings are still <\/i>to be followed, even by His disciples.<\/p>\n
These are the same people and faction, whom Paul referred to as possessing \u201ctraditions\u201d (Gal 1:14; noted by Whitaker himself, at the top of this paper). They\u2019re the same ones that Paul identifies himself twice as being a part of (after<\/i><\/b> his conversion). All this, but there is no legitimate \u201ctradition\u201d whatever in the New Testament, according to \u201csee no evil \/ hear no evil\u201d Whitaker.<\/p>\n
. . . Christ and the apostles always remand us to the scriptures . . . (p. 639)
\n*<\/div>\nThat\u2019s not true at all. There are scores and scores of evidences against such an absurd, unfactual statement. Here are several of the more famous non-biblical references in the New Testament:<\/p>\n
1 Corinthians 10:4<\/b> and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does. <\/span><\/p>\n
2 Timothy 3:8<\/b> As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n
James 5:17<\/b> Eli\u2019jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The reference to a lack of rain for three years is absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17.<\/span><\/p>\n
1 Peter 3:19<\/b> in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is drawn from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16)<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n
Jude 9<\/b> But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, \u201cThe Lord rebuke you.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Not found in the Old Testament (see Deut 34:5-6 for the account of Moses\u2019 death), but it was part of a Jewish tradition that Jude assumed his readers were familiar with.<\/p>\n
Jude 14-15<\/b> It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, \u201cBehold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is a direct quotation of the apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (1:9). Here is one translation<\/a> of the latter passage:<\/span><\/p>\n
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That is not from any Scripture; yet it is said that Enoch \u201cprophesied.\u201d Thus, authentic, genuine prophecy is not confined to the Old Testament written record. If this <\/i>is true prophecy (as we know it must be, because it is described as such in inspired revelation), who knows how much more<\/i> of 1 Enoch or other non-canonical ancient Jewish books also<\/i> contain true prophecy? That is tradition . . .<\/p>\n
Moreover, the New Testament massively cites passages or thought-patterns or concepts found in the Deuterocanon: books that Protestants and Whitaker reject as canonical (and call the \u201cApocrypha\u201d). Therefore, these are numerous additional examples of \u201cChrist and the apostles\u201d doing what Whitaker tells us they never<\/i> supposedly do: citations of something other than what he thinks is Scripture.<\/p>\n
Now the papists have run into still more intolerable errors in this matter than the Jews of old, since their religion is wholly occupied in observing and performing not those things which Christ sanctioned and enjoined, but those which man\u2019s boldness and curiosity have devised. For example, those who are esteemed religious amongst the papists observe the rules of their founders far more punctiliously than the commands of God: the truth of which remark hath been now for a long time no secret to all the world. (p. 640)
\n*<\/div>\nRight. Just a slice of genuine, old-fashioned, bigoted anti-Catholicism, to remind us of the tunnel-vision mentality we are here dealing with. I especially love the imbecilic inanity of the use of \u201cwholly\u201d. It\u2019s no wonder that Whitaker makes such poor, Scripture-torturing\u00a0 arguments, in defending sola Scriptura<\/i>. His judgment is clouded by this sort of purely irrational, self-refuting\u00a0 nonsense.<\/p>\n
At the time he was writing such things, men were having their hearts ripped out of their bodies and intestines slowly drawn out, then legs and arms and heads cut off (along with various other outrageous brutalities) in merrie olde \u201cReformation\u201d England, for the horrific, treasonous crime of simply believing what their forefathers had believed for many hundreds of years: the Catholic faith of St. Anselm<\/a>, the Venerable Bede<\/a>, St. Boniface<\/a>, Blessed Duns Scotus<\/a>, St. Thomas Becket<\/a>, St. Thomas More<\/a>, St. John Fisher<\/a>, and Alfred the Great<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The fourth place is taken from Luke xxiv. 25 and 27. Christ, in verse 25, blames the disciples for being slow \u201cto beheve all that the prophets have spoken.\u201d But where can those things be found? This appears from verse 27. There it follows: \u201cBeginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.\u201d Hence we frame the following argument: If all the things that the prophets spoke may be found in the scriptures, then may those also which the apostles spoke be found in the scriptures also. The first is true: therefore also the second. The force of the consequence is manifest. For the same reason which impelled the prophets to commit all they said to writing, led the apostles also to take a similar course. For if the prophets wrote all that they spoke, why should we not suppose that the apostles and evangelists, proceeding with the same prudence, governed by the same Spirit, and having the same end in view, committed likewise to writing the sum of that doctrine which they delivered to the churches? The same judgment should be passed where the cases are the same. And hence those are refuted, who dream of the existence of some unwritten prophetic traditions. For Luke makes all that the prophets spake to be comprised in the scriptures. Therefore, there were no unwritten traditions of the prophets. Therefore, there were no unwritten traditions of the apostles. The reason is precisely the same. If the ancient church had every thing in scripture, the christian church likewise hath every thing in scripture. The antecedent is plain ; therefore also the consequent. Otherwise God provided better for the Jews than for us. (pp. 643-644)
\n*<\/div>\nThis whole line of reasoning collapses, by the numerous examples I have provided above, which show that the writers of the New Testament, our Lord, the apostles, disciples, and early Christians all acknowledge traditions (and non-recorded acts) that go beyond the letter of the Bible. No passage in the Bible<\/i> says that the entirety of the prophetic message (let alone the apostolic message) was committed to writing, in the Bible alone. That is simply a tradition of men, invented out of whole cloth. It is not deduced by the passages that Whitaker produces. It\u2019s a mere fancy. There is no need to even refute it because no evidence (let alone biblical evidence) is given for it. Whitaker\u2019s supposed strong deductions are simply faulty, wishful thinking \u201clogic.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s refuted also in the inspired New Testament, in examples we have already seen. James 5:17 informs us that Elijah the prophet prayed and caused rain to cease for three-and-a-half years. Why, then, was this not recorded in the Old Testament? Surely it was very significant: a miracle even greater than the plagues of Moses upon Egypt. It is used as an illustration of the power of the righteous man\u2019s prayers. But it\u2019s not there<\/i>.<\/p>\n
If Whitaker supposedly excels at logical deduction, perhaps he can grasp this <\/i>one. This event occurred, because we know it for sure from inspired revelation in the New Testament. But it was not recorded<\/i>. Therefore, it follows that extraordinary miracles from prophets were not<\/i> all recorded in writing (or in the Bible), and were preserved, rather, in non-biblical tradition of some sort: precisely the opposite<\/i> of what Whitaker would have us believe. Elijah lived about a thousand years before James, so that tradition had to be passed down somewhere other than in the Bible. It probably was an oral tradition at first.\u00a0 James cites the tradition matter-of-factly, as if there would be no doubt as to its authenticity.<\/p>\n
Jude 14-15 said that Enoch (who lived much further back in history than Elijah) \u201cprophesied.\u201d Therefore, a prophecy occurred in remote centuries past, that was not a biblical one; yet regarded as authoritative by a New Testament writer and apostle: significant enough to be cited. How can this be<\/i>, under Whitaker\u2019s (false) premises? It cannot<\/i>. His view is overthrown by Holy Scripture itself.<\/p>\n
Likewise with Jude 9, which appears as a factual account, having to do with Moses, the devil, and the archangel Michael: nowhere to be seen in the Old Testament. So why is it cited as an authentic narrative of actual history? The New Testament was not dictated from above by God. The Bible writers utilized their own knowledge, which was preserved from error and inspired by God.<\/p>\n
The seventh place is taken from Acts xvii. 2, 3, where Luke writes that Paul reasoned for three sabbath-days out of the scriptures, . . . that Christ had suffered; so that this was the Christ whom he preached unto them. Paul then discoursed from the scriptures, and confirmed his whole doctrine by the scriptures. Hence we gather the following argument: If Paul used no other evidence than that of scripture in teaching and delivering the gospel, and refuting the Jews; then all testimonies which are requisite either to confirm the true doctrine of the gospel or to refute heresies may be taken out of scripture. The former is true, and therefore the latter. The consequence is manifest. For if any other testimony had been necessary, the apostle would have used it. But he confirmed his doctrine only by the scriptures; and therefore, in verse 11, the Bereans are praised for having searched the scriptures, and examined Paul\u2019s teaching by them. Therefore we ought to do likewise. Now no heretics are more keen disputers, or more difficult to be refuted, than the Jews. (pp. 645-646)
\n*<\/div>\nThis is altogether silly, because it is amply refuted by Paul himself. When preaching to the Athenians (no intellectual slouches themselves, as the founders of philosophy), and doing his best to persuade them of the truth of the gospel, the great apostle didn\u2019t stick to Scripture alone; he cited their own poets and philosophers:<\/p>\n
Acts 17:22-28<\/b> So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op\u2019agus, said: \u201cMen of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. [23] For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, `To an unknown god.\u2019 What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. [24] The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, [25] nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. [26] And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, [27] that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, [28] for `In him we live and move and have our being\u2019; as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here he was citing the Greek poet Aratus<\/a>: (c. 315-240 B.C.), and philosopher-poet Epimenides<\/a> (6th c. B.C.). As I wrote elsewhere (one bracketed footnote presently added):<\/p>\n
\n