Random thoughts on Tradition (Part 4)

I heard someone comment once that if Protestants took a step back, they’d realize that they are not opposed to the idea that the Pope has the gift of infallibility. What they are opposed to is the idea that only the Pope has that gift. If I am not mistaken, the application of John 16:12 – 14 among non-Catholics is that all individual Christians can know without doubt what God wants them to know about a passage of Scripture if their heart is pure on the issue, and they ask the Holy Spirit to lead them. The reasons Christians have so many divisions and opposing opinions on Scripture is because of our sinfulness, if we were all pure of heart and truly open to the H.S. leading, we’d all have the same interpretation. So all Christians have the gift of infallibility if they humble themselves. So, theoretically, it’s possible that a pope can have that same assurance. So, it’s not a case of ascribing too much to the pope, but of individual Catholics not giving themselves enough credit, right?

That is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think there’s something there to help us think about the issue. It took a lot of research to see, but I’ve become more impressed by the pope’s track record than individual Christians’ record. There are incredible cases of popes that, before they were pope, taught heresy. Events were orchestrated that they would become pope for the very purpose of advancing that heresy. But, once in office as pope, the pope would say they couldn’t teach it. Even to the point that they were exiled and starved to death for not teaching the heresy (the very thing they were gung-ho about before being pope.)

There have been sinful popes, but that did not preclude God from protecting the teaching office. Even though a pope was sinful, that pope never taught something officially that was incorrect. The same is true of OT scripture. Although David repented, at one time, his victim would have called him a ‘bad’ king for committing adultery and making sure the husband was killed. Even though he did that, it didn’t stop God from making sure that all Scripture that David wrote was infallible.

Sola Scriptura is not taught in Bible. Not taught during first 1500 yrs of the Church. I cited some Scripture above that is used to support the need for Sacred Tradition. To be fair, I should mention 2 Timothy 3:15 – 17 “holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is Godbreathed 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.”

The important note to me here is that it says All Scripture, not only Scripture. Perhaps one might argue that since it says you may be thoroughly equipped, it means fully equipped and therefore nothing else is needed. But then why does Paul speak favorably of traditions in Thessalonians and Corinthians? While an individual may happen upon a Bible and find everything they need to be saved right there, and more to equip them for good work, this does not exclude Tradition from being useful for the Church as a whole as well.

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21) This positive affirmation of Scripture is also taught by the CC, but it does not speak against Tradition.

One last Scripture which is related but doesn’t prove the point for Catholics: “Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:30-31) I fully acknowledge that people can and have just found the Bible and been saved without any human around to explain, but it is interesting that the Ethiopian says he can’t understand it on his own. Some Catholics try to claim this as a proof text against Sola Scriptura, but I don’t think it’s that strong. For one, the Ethiopian had at most the OT without any NT writings about Jesus, and possibly only the book of Isaiah which Acts says he was reading.

Sola Scriptura cannot answer all questions of faith because the Bible doesn’t self identify which books belong in the Bible. There is no table of contents. At one time as a Protestant, I heard a vague explanation that since the NT references verses in the OT, that is how we know which OT books Jesus & the Apostles considered scriptural. That may have been one factor the Church considered when the OT Canon was defined. However, if that was the only standard, then Esther & Song of Solomon among others would be out. The way we know what books belong in the Bible is by Tradition. The Church defined the Canon. If this were not true, every Christian would have to decide for themselves whether the books that are in the Bible belong there. They’d also have to consider whether the so-called ‘Lost Gospels’ of Thomas or whatever, should have been included in the Bible. So, although there is disagreement on the OT canon, the acceptance among non-Catholic Christians of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible is a form of Tradition.

I know that Catholics think Luther removed the 7 ‘apocryphal’ books of the OT and other Christians think the Catholic Church added them in the 1500’s. While it would be easy to write another big paper just on this issue, I was interested to learn that Luther also wanted to remove James, Hebrews, and Revelation, among others. He was overruled by other Reformers. It was interesting to me that if it is true that Luther removed them, then the previous image of a 3-legged stool is very appropriate. When you remove one leg of the stool, all three can fall. Is it possible that by removing the Magisterium from it’s authoritative role, Luther opened himself up to the error of discounting 7 books that really are the Word of God, as well as discounting Sacred Tradition. If this is true, how is what Luther did different from the Jesus Seminar does today, or Thomas Jefferson who cut out the parts of his bible that he didn’t like?

A few times I’ve heard Protestant preachers comment on the 500 years (or so) of silence from God in between the OT and NT. That state that God stopped speaking publicly through the prophets or through OT scripture. It’s very interesting that some of the 7 books disputed fill in that gap of time. For instance, Sirach was written around 200 – 175 B.C., Judith, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees around 100 B.C. Maybe God wasn’t silent after all.

I was discussing this issue with a friend who went to Bethel Seminary (Baptist General Conference). I was shocked to hear him say he thought it was possible that the Canon is not set in stone even today. That if we found some different evidence in some archeological dig, it could change the Church’s opinion on the Canon.

The Church could exist without the Bible and did exist without the New Testament, until it was written. But the Bible wouldn’t exist without the Church.

Does an infallible source require infallible interpretation? How important is it to have an infallible source if you don’t have infallible interpretation? I guess we’d agree that the Holy Spirit is that infallible interpreter. The question is how does the Holy Spirit accomplish this? Through each individual? Or though the Church, using individuals.

I understand how one might think, well – the concept of Tradition might be okay, but still not trust the fruits of it. Or to think the CC doesn’t follow it’s own claims. She might say there is no new revelation in the Catechism., but then in practice seem to claim new revelations about Mary or infallibility which contradict Scripture. It took me a while of study to see what the Catholic actually taught about those things, rather than my misunderstanding, and then to see that those teachings were either supported by Scripture, or at least did not contradict Scripture. The most important, but misunderstood doctrine, in my opinion, is salvation. I used to think that Protestants taught salvation by faith alone and the CC taught we are saved by faith and works. Ask many Catholics about their possibility of getting into heaven and they’ll talk about how they’ve been a pretty decent person. It’s a travesty that so many Catholics don’t even understand Catholic doctrine on the issue. What I learned is that the CC teaches not that faith is primary, nor that works are primary, but that God’s grace is primary. We are saved by God’s grace, and our faith AND works are our response to God’s grace. Just as you could not have saving faith in God without his grace, so you could not have works that counted for anything unless God’s grace made it possible. (A Christian’s works of charity have an entirely different eternal effect for themselves than someone who does the same good deeds but has rejected Christ.) And that faith must come before works. But the only place in the Bible where the two words faith and alone appear next to each other is in James, where he says that we are NOT justified by faith alone. (Although I’ve read that in his German translation of the Bible, Luther inserted the word alone after faith in Rom. 3:28. It is not there in modern Protestant Bibles.)