Does the Bible support Catholic tradition like they say it does?

Question

Where does it say, "Listen to Catholic Tradition?"

Where does it say this was passed down by oral tradition?

Relevance please?

Answer 1

No, not at all. Catholics reject the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic tradition are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Roman Catholics doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc. have little or no basis at all in Scripture, but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions. Essentially the Roman Catholic Church’s denial of “Sola Scriptura” and their insistence that both the Bible and their “Sacred Tradition” are equal in authority undermines the sufficiency, authority and completeness of the Bible. While there are many verses in the Bible that establish it’s authority and it’s sufficiency for all matters of faith and practice, one of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16 where we see that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Answer 2

all Rcc beliefs can be found in the bible, some plainly others indirectly indicated. Scripture itself points out an authoritative church & tradition. St Paul points out in his second letter to the Thess – stand firm & hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter. Here are some scriptures to check out 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 3:6, 2 Tim 1:13-14 & 2:2. When the first Christians had disagreements they didn’t open their bibles – they didn’t exist – they held councils and held binding decrees – these councils were those who knew more then the others and they came to an agreement/understanding and thus made a binding decree (acts 15:1-29). The very books of the bible were determined by the Church (Rcc) and didn’t even happen until the 4th century – centuries of oral tradition. Without their determination and will to listen to the Holy Spirit, sent by God to inspire them there would be no bible.

If the traditions and leaders of the Rcc did not hold to the scriptures (while some held violently or savagely) the majority shared and taught. Had the hierarchy of the Rcc not established the foundations where would Christianity be today? Would there even be a bible in print – I really don’t think so. Because people would not have shared their traditions. Most people century’s back never owned a bible like we do, gracious they couldn’t even read.

Answer 3

The Catholic Church was in existence from the beginning. We can trace our history back to Peter. It was not called "Catholic" at that time...but it was no less the Church. We know that the "mass" was definitely being celebrated in 150AD...a scant 150 years after the crucifixion. There were reports of Christians eating flesh and drinking blood. So, we know the Eucharist was already instituted. When the Romans investigated these claims, they found that Christians were eating unlevened bread and wine...no cannibalism. But that fact that they were being accused of it that early, tells us that they were celebrating the Eucharist as we do today. 150AD is before some of the scriptures were written and before the Bible had been compiled. So we KNOW the Catholic Mass was practiced by the early Christians.

http://www.fisheaters.com/fathersoneucharist.html



Also, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul says:So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.



Another thing...wouldn't you think that if the Catholic's were dangerous and wrong...that someone would have written...scripture is the ONLY authority? But no where in the Bible does the Bible say it's the only authority.



Also, the Catholic church compiled the New Testament. She selected the inspired texts. So, the very Bible you are trying to use to discredit...is the scripture that the Church knows to be the Word of God and therefore we know that our traditions do not go against the scripture.



Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.



He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).



Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).



What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.



There is just so much, it's impossible to write it all...but if you truly would like to know, then do some research. I've included links...check them out.

Answer 4

You run into serious problems when you rely on the Bible alone for guidance. Was the "Field of Blood" so named because of Judas' organs falling out or due to the coins being "blood money"? Both were oral traditions.



Tradition also says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. How could he write about his own death?



The Gospels were written a generation after Christ and his disciples, and redacted centuries later. How did they get passed along for decades before being written down?



Further, post-crucifixion there were many traditions. Some said Jesus was merely a man, some that he was only God. Some said he danced before execution, while some said he grieved and feared.



The "Christ" that all Christian believe in was settled on in early Catholic councils, such as Trent. Discordant beliefs were deemed heresy and books that were thrown out were not accepted as canon. If you doubt the Catholic Church on Christian issues, you would need to gather up many books (such as the Gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdalene). Then read them and determine for yourself what is accepted Christianity.



However, I suspect that this question is deliberately leading. Is it really just thinly veiled anti-Catholic bigotry hiding behind a question?

Answer 5

In Exodus God explains how to live your life rightly but thats about as far as the Bible goes. I think that the Catholic church has the tradition for more the feeling. I am not a Catholic or even a Christian but I just took a class on the Church. The traditions evolved from small prayer times into what we have today in the Dark Ages.

In the Bible look at the Second Commandment. Yet we still have crosses at every church. It just goes to show that what is said in the Bible doesn't mean the Catholic Church will follow it.

Answer 6

If you "stepped outside the situation" for a moment, and viewed both Catholicism & the thousands of versions of Protestanism objectively, you would see that Catholicism was being passed down as a tradition for 1500 years before Protestantism was even invented. Add to that the fact the "the written Word" in the form of the bible can easily be shown to be at least as unreliable as the spoken traditions, and it becomes clear that they are both probably nonsense.



The books chosen to be included in the "canon" of Christian literature were chosen for political, not religious reasons. It's a fascinating history.



It really says nothing about "God" and a whole lot about mankind!



Assuming you are a Protestant Christian, do you know why you use the particular bible you probably do? (hint: it has NOTHING to do with the "original biblical texts" or, in fact, with Christianity!)



You should read some of this fellow's books (with your bible open too, so you can check his facts & details...). It's an eye-opening experience!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Answer 7

The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this Biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?







Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).







Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.







Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).







Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.







Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).







Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).







Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.







Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).







Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.







Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:10). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Answer 8

Pastor Billy says: here we go again.



The Christian bible is in fact a Catholic book. There is nothing in scripture or holy Christian tradition which contradict.

Fact is the bible itself is a "tradition" and half of the Protestant bible today contains Catholic tradition in the form of the New Testament canon which was decided upon by early Catholic councils, which books to include and which books to exclude.



In reality all Christians have tradition whether they are Catholic or not the difference is Catholics at least admit to it.

For example



where do I find alter call in the bible?

where do I find the sinners prayer in the bible?

where do I find Reformed Church. Lutheran Church, Methodist Church, Baptist Church, Calvinism, Adventist Church etc etc etc .... in the bible?

where do I "personal relationship" in the bible?

where do I find believers baptism ...... in the bible?

where do I find rapture tradition in the bible?

where do I find christian zionism..... in the bible? (zionism is a political movement)



I could list many more non-Catholic traditions which non-Catholics hold to and yet you do not find them....... in the bible.



Tradition is something associated with all the high point of our life for example, birth, graduation, marriage. Why do Christians exchange rings at marriage that is a tradition ritual.

Why do Christians go to a graduation party and dressup for it to receive awards that is a ....tradition ritual. Why do Christian mothers have baby showers as this is a traditional ritual.



The real question should be : Doesn't God deserve the traditional worship he has given us to use in worship of him?





Edit: Dear K try reading the verses before 2Tim3:16 you'll discover Paul explaining to Timothy the importance of oral tradition. 2Tim3:16 is often taken way out of context to support the falsehood of sola scriptura, a creation some 1600 years after Jesus Christ. The verse explains scripture is "profitable" meaning helpful but it never explains scripture as singularly authority or final. If you do intend to make it say this you would have to rip your bible asunder as Paul mentions in the verses prior that Timothy is to be knowledgeable on the scriptures from his youth. Paul in essense is writing about Old Testament scripture here in 2Tim and not scriptures to come or the any of New Testament being writen at the time.



Basically you can't have your cake and eat it too K if you want to believe sola scriptura and claim St. Paul is supporting that view in 2Tim well you'll have to get rid of your Roman Catholic New Testament canon :)

Answer 9

Heh,



I love when protestants talk down to Catholics as though they are non biblical in their beliefs.



Have you considdered that the Holy Roman Empire ie Catholic Church, were the ones who cannonized the bible you use today.



Catholics decided which books were inspired, and which books were not. Catholics chose to define Christian doctrine during that process. Protestantism didn't come around for a thousand years, the bible and NT as you know and love it was crafted by Catholics. It is a bit presumptuous for protestants to say that the Catholics are unbiblical when they were the ones who created it?



Silly.



Oh and I am not a Catholic and have no Catholic upbrining, I believe the whole thing is a bit of Malarky.

Answer 10

The Bible does not support Catholic tradition.

Catholicism is a tradition that teaches from the Bible. Religions are created from the teachings. Logically, in order for the Bible to cite the tradition of Catholicism, the religion would have had to been around before the Bible.



The Catholic Church shares a large number of Biblical beliefs with evangelical Christianity: the inerrancy of the Bible, the Trinitarian nature of God, the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ, as well as His crucifixion and resurrection.



Many of the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are either un-Biblical or extra-Biblical. The Catholics actually use a different Bible than Protestants. Their Bible has more books within it, which accounts for some of the differences in Catholic doctrines. The Catholic Church has traditionally held that salvation can be attained only through observance of their sacraments. Because of this... they have set themselves apart as the only true church.... not endorsed by the Christian Bible.

Answer 11

For 2000 years the Church has made a faithful witness to Christ. Of course we can all read the Bible, but isn't it arrogant in the extreme to ignore the many generations of the Saints who have also prayerfully read and studied the Bible? Don't you think that the longstanding traditions and teachings of the Church have something to teach this generation? Or should we just make it up for ourselves, assuming that this generation knows best? One of the flaws of modern fundamentalist Christianity is that it thinks it knows about the 1st Century and it thinks it knows about the 19th, 20th and 21st Century, but it knows next to nothing about what came between.

Answer 12

No, infact the Bible "forecast" that some would "depart from the faith", in other words, start their own religion.



"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. " 1 Timothy 4:1-3



Sounds like some of the "traditions" of the Catholic religion to me.

Answer 13

A very good resource to learn about Catholicism is St. Anthony Press online at http://www.americancatholic.org Just use the search engine on the home page.

Answer 14

The concept of Sola Scriptura is itself incompatible with the Bible.



The canon of the Bible is agreed upon by tradition. The Bible was never written as a single book, it is a collection of many different books. Technically, the Bible is an anthology, not a book itself.



Without tradition, you would not have a Bible at all.



Further, the Bible in multiple places references books, as authoritative, that were not included in the canon of the Bible.



Sola Scriptura ... is scripturally flawed.



--------------------



"F.Y.I., Our beliefs must rest solidly on the teachings of the Holy Bible. "



Yes, they must. But you must remember -- without Tradition, you wouldn't have a Bible at all.

Answer 15

No! The Catholics made up their own traditions and rules in addition to the Bible. They even hold the Church as more authoritative than the Bible! I think Jesus would have treated them just like he did the pharisees : "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" -Mark 7:9

Answer 16

No. Most Catholic traditions have been borrowed from paganism. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching as doctrine the traditions of men. The same condemnation holds for Catholicism.

Answer 17

"there is unquestionably no longer something in the Bible premiere Christians to nicely known Mary, adore Mary, or refer to Mary." Roflmao -- needless to say, then, you have under no circumstances even study the Bible, and for this reason haven't any room to talk, for Mary herself pronounced, "to any extent further all generations will call me blessed." And Catholics do no longer adore Mary; we like God and God on my own.

Answer 18

It begins with Jesus' words to Peter, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18. And ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about building ANYTHING knows very well that you can't build ANYTHING without making each successive step conform to and built upon the previous constructive steps, so, simple English, and a modicum of intelligence about building, ANYTHING, would make it unquestionably clear that Jesus Himself, by that one statement alone, establishes tradition as a prime factor in His Church. God Bless you, from a Roman Catholic from birth, many decades ago.

Answer 19

Catholics do a lot of things that are not biblical. So do all religions and denominations. So what? Nobody ever said that the bible is the only source of doctrine. And nobody is forcing you to be a Catholic.

Answer 20

all depends how you interpret many passages, also most of the stuff in the old testament (hebrew scriptures) was orginally sacred tradition before it was recorded, so do not shoot down non-biblical stuff so soon and its funny because without Catholics you would in all liklehood never recieved a Bible

Answer 21

not in my bible it doesnt.i use the king james version if you read the ten commandments it clearly states not to bow to idols and the like .you are to pray to GOD in JESUS name and there is no mention of a pope or pergatory nor is it stated any where that the sabbath was changed to sunday for the lords day because of JESUS ressurection on EASTER sunday.if you want to know the truth study for yourself.amen.

Answer 22

where does it say to go on yahoo answers?



the bible didnt exist for about 300 years after Christ, w/o oral tradition, there'd be no bible.



and i guess they never wrote a 'making of the bible' book that would say how it was passed down by oral tradition.



im not sure the book, but the bible does say 'hold strong to your traditions'

Answer 23

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).



"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

Answer 24

What you call Catholicism now is the group that assembled the Bible as you now see it, with the NT books you see there.



_()_

Answer 25

The bible counterdicts itself in a lot of ways. Technically Catholics are christian. Just a different form.

Answer 26

I recall that one of the commandments goes :"You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."



Still, cathoholic temples are rife with gory images of dying saints, including Jesus and the Virgin.....



But for the rest of Christian religions it's all the same:



"You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house;

you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Answer 27

Jesus told Peter to build a church and even helped him establish it. Peter was the first Pope.

Answer 28

Catholicism is umbiblical...

God forgives sins only not the pope or priests...

Jesus is the head of the church not the pope...

Purgatory...is not mentioned in the Bible!

Catholics traditions are not biblical

Catholic have an add to and edited Bible they use today...including book that contradict some of the good and God inspired books.

Answer 29

No it doesn't really and i'm a catholic.

Answer 30

It does you no good to advocate the Bible, when you don't understand it: First, let's deal with the fallacy of sola scriptura, and then go into Biblical evidence of Sacred Tradition.



Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.



Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.



Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.



Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.



Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.



John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.



Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.



Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.



Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.



1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.



1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.



Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.



Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.



1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).



1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.



2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?



2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).



2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).



1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.



2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.



2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.



James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")



2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.



2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.



2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.



1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.



1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.



1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.



Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).



Other Passages used to Support "Sola Scriptura"

John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura.



John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse "Scripture cannot be broken" to somehow prove sola Scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.



John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. Indeed, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.



Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.



Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).



1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.



Rev. 1:11,19 - Non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus' commands to John to write as support for the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus commands John to write because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus' usual command). Further, such a commandment would be limited to the book that John wrote, the Book of Revelation, and would have nothing to do with the other Scriptures.



Rev. 22:18-19 - some Protestants argue against Catholic tradition by citing this verse, "don't add to the prophecies in this book." But this commandment only refers to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible which came 300 years later.



Deut 4:2; 12:32 - moreover, God commands the same thing here but this did not preclude Christians from accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.



The Word of God is Transferred Orally

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.



Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.



Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?



Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.



Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.



Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.



Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."



Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).



Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.



1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.



Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.



Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.



Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.



1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.



2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.



2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.



Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.



1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.



2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.



2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.



Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.



Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.



Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.



Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.



Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.



Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)



Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).



Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.



Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.



Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.



John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.



1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.



Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”



Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.



Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.



1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.



1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.



2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.



2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.



2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.



2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.



2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.



1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.



2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.



2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).



1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.



Examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.



Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.



John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.



Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.



1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.



1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.



Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."



Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.



Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.



Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Answer 31

NO!