![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/09\/OliveiraJuan.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\n*
\nHis words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0Translations from the Portugese of his book will be made with Google Translate (with an occasional additional modification). I will use RSV for Bible translations.<\/div>\n
Sola Scriptura<\/em> is a theological principle that is based on the belief that<\/span> <\/span>The Bible is the only final and infallible authority for Christian faith and practice. . . . the Bible is the supreme source of authority in matters of faith and morals, above traditions, church teachings or human opinions.<\/span> . . . the norm by which all other authorities must be evaluated.<\/span> (p. 42)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n We agree on the definition. We disagree on whether it is a true or false and biblically supported viewpoint.<\/p>\n [A]ny teaching or tradition that does not conform to the<\/span> <\/span>Scriptures must be rejected.<\/span> (p. 42)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n What cannot be tradition is anything that is in conflict with the scriptures. <\/span>(p. 43)<\/p>\n Catholics wholeheartedly agree. That\u2019s why we are so opposed to several Protestant man-made doctrines; \u201ctraditions of men\u201d: because they are contrary to Holy Scripture. Nothing personal against them; we\u2019re just trying to be consistently \u201cbiblical.\u201d We must, however, define what we mean by \u201cbiblical\u201d. Catholics mean by that, that every doctrine must be in harmony<\/strong> with Scripture and not contrary<\/strong> to it<\/em>. Protestants often mean by the word, \u201cexplicitly<\/em> mentioned in Scripture.\u201d We agree with Martin Luther, when he wrote that \u201cwhat is not against the Scriptures is for the Scriptures and the Scriptures are for it\u201d (Letter to Philip Melanchthon, 13 January 1522<\/a>). I wrote in my article, \u201cExplicit\u201d Bible Proofs & Protestant Double Standards<\/a> [2-12-16; with a little added presently]:<\/p>\n A doctrine can be \u201cbiblical\u201d without explicit mention in the Bible. Some things are implicit \/ indirect only, or logically deduced from other more explicit passages. Some doctrines, including many distinctively Protestant ones, are arguably not in the Bible at all. The New Testament never mentions an \u201caltar call\u201d. It never has the typical \u201csinner\u2019s prayer\u201d of evangelicals. It doesn\u2019t mention church buildings. It never uses the frequently mentioned evangelical terminology of \u201cpersonal relationship with Jesus.\u201d It never lists its own books (the biblical canon comes from the authority and proclamations of the Catholic Church and tradition). It never teaches\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, or the concept that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority. Yet \u2013oddly enough and passing strange \u2014 \u00a0this is one of the very\u00a0\u201cpillars\u201d<\/em>\u00a0of the Protestant worldview.<\/p>\n Other beliefs or practices not explicitly mentioned in the Bible are Bible studies, grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), \u201casking Jesus into one\u2019s heart,\u201d a \u201cbody of believers,\u201d Scripture interpreting Scripture (the more clear helping to understand the less clear), agreeing on \u201cessential\u201d or \u201cprimary\u201d doctrines and permitted relativism regarding \u201cnon-essential\u201d or \u201csecondary\u201d doctrines, denominations (vs. the biblical \u201cone Church\u201d). Of course, this very idea<\/em>\u00a0that one must find explicit biblical proof for every doctrine or it can\u2019t \/ mustn\u2019t be believed (even with high selectivity or rank inconsistency) is not found in the Bible anywhere, either. It\u2019s (irony of all ironies!) a mere tradition of men.<\/p>\n Some popular Protestant (and also often Catholic) words or phrases \u00a0that do not appear in the Bible are\u00a0rapture<\/em>,\u00a0invisible church<\/em>,\u00a0incarnation<\/em>,\u00a0virgin birth<\/em>,\u00a0holy communion<\/em>,\u00a0Lord\u2019s prayer<\/em>,\u00a0Bible<\/em>,\u00a0original sin<\/em>,\u00a0fall of man<\/em>,\u00a0theology<\/em>,\u00a0go[ing] to church<\/em>,\u00a0grace alone<\/em>,\u00a0[total] depravity<\/em>,\u00a0unconditional election<\/em>,\u00a0limited atonement<\/em>,\u00a0irresistible grace<\/em>,\u00a0perseverance of the saints<\/em>,\u00a0spirituality<\/em>,\u00a0Scripture alone<\/em>,\u00a0pray for guidance<\/em>,\u00a0pray for direction<\/em>,\u00a0spiritual warfare<\/em>, and\u00a0sin nature<\/em>.\u00a0Faith alone<\/em>\u00a0only appears once:<\/p>\n James 2:24\u00a0<\/strong>You see that a man is justified by works and\u00a0not<\/em><\/strong> by\u00a0faith alone<\/em>.<\/p>\n Protestants manage to believe all these things (or use these words) with no problem whatever. Why? Or, more specifically, why do they believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics misery for similar things, or else doctrines and practices with far\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0indication of various sorts than the things above, that Protestants accept? Why the double standard? Or is it just that the Protestants who sling these sorts of \u201carguments\u201d about never think about them very deeply, or have never met a Catholic who can show that they are very weak arguments indeed?<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sorry to get so in-depth about this, but the above clarifications are supremely important to keep in mind as we proceed with this vexed and vastly misunderstood topic.<\/p>\n We have the famous verse that Catholics love to use to extol <\/span><\/span>tradition, which is in 2 Thessalonians 2.15: \u201cSo, brothers, stand firm and<\/span><\/span> hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word or by letter<\/span><\/span>.\u201d<\/span><\/span> But this spoken tradition was the teachings contained in the<\/span><\/span> <\/span>letters from the apostles, and when not, the apostles did not introduce innovations.<\/span> (pp. 42-43)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Now here is a classic \/ \u201ctextbook\u201d example of utterly wrongheaded and unbiblical Protestant tradition. What Juan is attempting to argue is absolutely absent from Holy Scripture. Nowhere does it ever claim that when \u201ctradition\u201d is mentioned, it can only<\/em> refer to teachings in other portions of the Bible<\/em> (which at the time were not even finally determined yet) and can never be anything beyond those (while still in harmony with them). It\u2019s a very silly, confused, unsupported claim, and its simply assumed without no basis for doing so. This is the notion that Protestants call \u201cinscripturation.\u201d\u00a0It was explained at length by the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler, writing with Ralph MacKenzie, in the article, \u201cA Defense of Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Christian Research Institute<\/i>, 4-8-09; my italics):<\/p>\n It is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. \u2026<\/p>\n Since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. \u2026 all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Timothy 3:15-17). \u2026<\/p>\n There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated<\/em> by them in the only books \u2014 the inspired books of the New Testament \u2014 that they left for the church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I wrote about it in<\/a> National Catholic Register<\/em> (3-15-21):<\/p>\n Protestants have to believe something akin to this notion, because of their aversion to extrabiblical (yet harmonious with Scripture) authoritative, binding tradition. They agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching wouldn\u2019t be recorded in Scripture. The Bible itself teaches us that there\u00a0are<\/i>\u00a0such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (John 20:30, 21:25, Acts 1:2-3, Luke 24:15-16,25-27). The logic is simple:<\/p>\n Apostles\u2019 teaching was authoritative and binding (i.e., for all practical purposes, \u201cinfallible\u201d). Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later \u201cinscripturated\u201d or not.\u00a0If they were so bound, it stands to reason that\u00a0we<\/i> could and should be, also.\u00a0Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2).<\/p>\n When Paul was preaching he did so authoritatively, as an apostle. Not everything he said was later included in the Bible; therefore it was not all inspired<\/i>\u00a0(he was no walking Bible-machine any more than Jesus was). But he was an\u00a0authority<\/i>, and acted consciously upon this authority.\u00a0Inscripturation teaches that anything\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0recorded in Scripture could\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>have been passed down by Paul: a contention that is absurd on its face.<\/p>\n As an example of a Protestant who accepts the binding, infallible nature of a teaching even if it isn\u2019t taught in the Bible, I submit Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. He wrote a letter [regarding infant baptism] to Albrecht (or Albert), Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, dated April 1532 by some and February or early March by others. The well-known Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton cites the following portion of it:<\/p>\n This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else<\/i>, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (Studies on the Reformation<\/em>, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke<\/i>, Weimar edition in German], Vol. XXX, 552; my italics)<\/p>\n St. Augustine had taught the same 1100 years earlier:<\/p>\n As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . . For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity . . . of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church. (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Since Old Testament times we see God preserving his word through<\/span><\/span> of writing.<\/span><\/span> This is why the Bible often uses the expression \u201cit is written\u201d,<\/span><\/span> 31 times in the Old Testament and 78 times in the New Testament.<\/span><\/span> God said it<\/span><\/span> in Isaiah 30:8: \u201cGo now, write this on a tablet before them and<\/span><\/span> record it in a book;<\/span><\/span> so that it may remain until the last day, forever and ever<\/span><\/span> perpetually.\u201d<\/span><\/span> The way God uses to preserve his word throughout the ages<\/span><\/span> <\/span>centuries is not through word of mouth, it is through writing.<\/span> (p. 43)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n God does<\/em> primarily use writing, but it\u2019s not all<\/em> He uses, and the Bible bears witness to oral tradition as well:<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Oral Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[2-20-09]<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah & Oral Apostolic Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[10-18-11]<\/p>\n Anglican Newman on Oral & Written Apostolic Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[10-12-19]<\/p>\n Oral Tradition According to Great Historic Apologists<\/a>\u00a0[10-18-19]<\/p>\n In the Bible, \u201cWord of God\u201d Usually Means Oral Proclamation<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 12-17-19]<\/p>\n Jesus the \u201cNazarene\u201d: Did Matthew Make Up a \u201cProphecy\u201d? (Reply to Jonathan M. S. Pearce from the Blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher\u00a0<\/em>\/ Oral Traditions and Possible Lost Old Testament Books Referred to in the Bible)<\/a>\u00a0[12-17-20]<\/p>\n Oral Tradition: More Biblical (Pauline) Evidence (. . . and an Examination of the False and Unbiblical Protestant Supposed Refutation of \u201cInscripturation\u201d)<\/a>\u00a0[2-27-21]<\/p>\n Authoritative Non-Biblical Oral Proclamation from a Prophet (Not an Apostle) Led by the Holy Spirit, After the Day of Pentecost<\/a>\u00a0[Facebook, 4-1-21]<\/p>\n In the Torah (first five books of the OT), nothing can be found in Mosaic Law forbidding the carrying of objects from one\u2019s house on the Sabbath. Yet according to the prophet Jeremiah, God willed that Jerusalem be destroyed for not abiding by this oral tradition and command:<\/p>\n Jeremiah 17:21-22, 27<\/b> Thus says the LORD: Take heed for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem. [22] And do not carry a burden out of your houses on the sabbath or do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, as I commanded your fathers. . . . [27] But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, the written revelation of the Old Testament referred to the oral Torah, given to Moses (according to Jewish tradition) on Mt. Sinai at the same time he received the written Law. It even says that God \u201ccommanded\u201d this stipulation for the Sabbath. Since it isn\u2019t found in the written Torah, then it had to come from the authoritative oral Torah.<\/p>\n Surprisingly enough, the written Torah never specifies that\u00a0Jerusalem<\/em> would be the central place of worship, or that a temple<\/em> was to be built there (neither the words \u201ctemple\u201d \u2014 in this sense \u2014 nor \u201cJerusalem\u201d ever appears in the Pentateuch or Torah: first five books of the Bible). It\u2019s never taught in the Torah that a permanent temple would replace the tabernacle (extensively<\/em> dealt with in the Torah) as the central place of worship. If God didn\u2019t authoritatively reveal His plan concerning a future temple to Moses, then all of the sacrificial worship of Israel from the time of Solomon was invalid. Therefore, the command had to be in the oral Torah.<\/p>\n The Jerusalem Council issued four commands to Gentile believers. Three dealt with food (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25), and two of those derived from the oral Torah (written down much later): namely, not to eat things sacrificed to idols (Mishnah Avodah Zorah 2:3) or things strangled (Mishnah Chullin 1:2). The written Torah doesn\u2019t prohibit either, yet Jesus strongly condemns Pergamum and Thyatira for not observing their ban (Rev 2:14, 20).<\/p>\n John Chrysostom exhorted<\/span><\/span>\u00a0his congregation not to seek any other teaching than the oracles<\/span><\/span> of God, as everything that was needed could be extracted directly and<\/span><\/span> clearly from the Bible.<\/span><\/span><\/span> (p. 59)<\/p>\n That\u2019s untrue. He also wrote:<\/p>\n Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, \u201cwhether by word or our Epistle\u201d (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, \u201cHold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.\u201d\u00a0(Homily III on 2 Timothy<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>\u2013 on 2 Tim 1:13-18)<\/p>\n \u201cThat ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.\u201d It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others\u2019 pride, who oppose themselves.\u00a0(Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians<\/a><\/i>; commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:2)<\/p>\n \u201cSo then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.\u201dHence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.\u00a0(On Second Thessalonians<\/a><\/i>, Homily IV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Chrysostom even appeals to an apostolic unwritten tradition of intercessory prayers for the dead:<\/p>\n Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain resulteth to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, . . . (On Philippians<\/a><\/i>, Homily 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Concerning the\u00a0\u201csacred writers,\u201d\u00a0St. John Chrysostom commented:<\/p>\n . . . it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition.\u00a0(On Acts of the Apostles<\/a><\/i>, Homily 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In St. Paul\u2019s epistles tradition, gospel, and word of God are synonymous concepts. They\u2019re all predominantly oral, not written, and are referred to as being \u201cdelivered\u201d and \u201creceived\u201d:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:2<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0. . . maintain the traditions . .\u00a0 . . even as I have delivered them to you.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0. . . hold to the traditions . . . .\u00a0 taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 3:6 \u00a0<\/strong>. . . the tradition that you received from us.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:1\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the gospel, which you received . . .<\/p>\n Galatians 1:9\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the gospel . . . which you received.<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:9\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0. . . we preached to you the gospel of God.<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:13\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0. . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . . (cf. Acts 8:14)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Athanasius wrote that \u201cthe holy Scriptures<\/span> <\/span>and inspired were completely sufficient to proclaim the truth.\u201d<\/span> (p. 59)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Of course they are. But Athanasius did not hold to sola Scriptura<\/em>.\u00a0St. Athanasius affirmed infallible Church and conciliar pronouncements, the Catholic rule of faith, and the binding, infallible nature of doctrines received through apostolic succession and apostolic tradition (all expressly contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em>):<\/p>\n But the word of the Lord which came through the\u00a0ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever.\u00a0(Ad Afros\u00a0<\/i><\/a>Epistola Synodica<\/a><\/em>2; in NPNF2, IV:489)<\/p>\n But let the Faith confessed by the\u00a0Fathers\u00a0at Nic\u00e6a alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, \u2018Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the\u00a0traditions\u00a0to you, so hold them fast\u00a01\u00a0Corinthians\u00a011:2<\/span>.\u2019\u00a0(Ad Afros\u00a0<\/i><\/a>Epistola Synodica<\/a><\/em>10)<\/p>\n For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nic\u00e6a by the whole Ecumenical Council; . . . Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defense of that heresy which they opposed and protested against?\u00a0(Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae<\/em><\/a>, 5)<\/p>\n Who, then, that has any real regard for\u00a0truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? Who will not\u00a0justly reject their writing? Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council?\u00a0(Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae<\/em><\/a>, 7)<\/p>\n It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church, nor did the fathers hold this.\u00a0(Letter No. 59 to Epictetus<\/a>, 3)<\/p>\n What defect of teaching was there for religious\u00a0truth\u00a0in the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church . . .?\u00a0(De Synodis<\/em><\/a>, I, 3)<\/p>\n But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, . . .\u00a0(Fragment from Letter No. 29<\/a>\u00a0[Migne,\u00a0xxvi,<\/i> p. 1189] )<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 6.\u00a0 . . . Therefore Paul\u00a0justly praises the Corinthians [1 Corinthians 11:2]<\/span>,\u00a0because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions<\/strong>. And the Lord most righteously reproved the\u00a0Jews, saying, \u2018Wherefore do you also transgress the commandments of God on account of\u00a0