"Where is that in the Bible?"
This question is based on sola scriptura, one of the important slogans of the Reformation. Sola scriptura means that everything we believe must be found in the Bible. If it is not found in the Bible, then it should not be believed. Although I have shown that many Catholic doctrines can be supported in the Bible, it does not mean that everything must be in the Bible in order to justify a belief or practice. For instance, I admit that the praying the Rosary is not explicitly taught in the Bible
These are the following reasons that sola scriptura cannot be true.
Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. So if sola scriptura is not even in the Bible, then according to sola scriptura itself, it is not to be believed.
Just this argument alone completely destroys sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is self-contradictory. The question “Where is that in the Bible” does not fare well when it is turned on itself. Where is it in the Bible that we can only believe what is in the Bible? When Protestants are confronted with this argument, they would throw out the following verses to try to prove that the Bible teaches sola scriptura:
Sanctify them in the truth, thy Word is truth
John 17:17
having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God,
1Pet 1:3
For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart
Hebrews 4:12
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16
But none of the verses say that the Bible is the ONLY source of truth. We Catholics agree that the Bible is incorruptible, and it is living and active. But these verses do not say that the Bible is the ONLY thing that is incorruptible, and is the ONLY thing that is living and active.
Special attention is needed for 2 Timothy 3:16. This verse says that EVERY scripture is inspired by God. It does not say that ONLY scripture is inspired by God.
It is then argued that since that verse says “that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work”, that scripture is all we need to be complete. But is that true? Don’t we also need prayer? Don’t we need Christian fellowship? Don’t we need the Holy Spirit? Just because scripture is profitable to making us complete, it does not mean it is the only thing that is profitable to make us compete.
But the biggest killer to this argument is what was considered “scripture” at the time Paul wrote this. Scripture at that time was the Old Testament. None of the gospels, the writings of Paul, or the writings of others were included into scripture until much later after the apostles were dead. So if Paul were to mean that scripture is the only thing inspired by God, he would have meant that only the OLD TESTAMENT scripture is inspired God. This would mean that the New Testament could not be part of the Word of God! It if this verse was to support sola scriptura, it would also support sola-Old Testament. This verse would then not only exclude tradition, it would also exclude the New Testament as well.
There are many things that Christians, especially Protestants, practice that are not in the Bible.
There are many practices by Protestants that are not in the Bible. Altar calls are not in the Bible. Church pews are not in the Bible. Passing the offering plate during church service is not in the Bible. Should we do away with these things because they are not in the Bible? No, there is a difference between a practice being un-Biblical and a practice being anti-Biblical. An un-Biblical practice not commanded in the Bible. But neither is it prohibited in the Bible. As long as the Bible does not explicitly command us not to do it, we are free to do it. This is what it means to be free in Christ. I do not need a scripture verse in order to justify every action I do. Unless there is a command in the Bible that forbids me to pray the Rosary, I am free in Christ to pray the Rosary. No Catholic says it is a sin NOT to pray the Rosary. We may encourage it, by we never say that it is a sin not to do it. I wear a brown scapular around my neck. Is that a sin? If you think so, you must come up the verse in the Bible that explicitly forbids my wearing a scapular. The burden of proof would be on the one who calls it a sin. A practice is not a sin unless it is explicitly forbidden by God’s revelation.
There are many things that Christians, especially Protestants, believe that are not in the Bible.
God specifically commanded Moses that we should hold the seventh day holy – Saturday. There is no command at all in the New Testament that we should change that day from Saturday to Sunday. There is no justification for that in the Bible alone. True, we Catholics also worship on Sunday, but we justify this based on very early tradition. But Christians who say that everything we believe must be in the Bible have no justification for switching the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
No matter how much a person says he looks at the Bible alone, he is actually reading the Bible based on the tradition he was raised in – whether that be Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, or even Catholic. The difference between the Catholic and the Protestant is that the Catholic admits he is reading the Bible from his own Catholic tradition. The Protestant does not admit it, but even though he does not admit it, he is using his tradition to help him read the Bible. That is why there are thousands of different Protestant denominations, even though most of them say they believe in sola scriptura.
What should be part of the Bible is not even in the Bible
Jesus never gave us a list of which documents should be in the Bible. None of the writers ever wrote that what they are writing is part of the Word of God. Whenever Jesus and the apostles referred to the scriptures, they meant the Old Testament scriptures. So how did the New Testament writings become part of the Bible as we know it? This is a huge problem for the Protestant, who rejects Tradition and the Magisterium. God did not just drop the bible out of the sky! Mathew wrote his gospel at one place and at a certain time. Mark wrote his at a different place at a different time. For about the four hundred years, there was no “Bible”. It was not until the end of the fourth century that we had a “Bible”. Until then, we just had scattered documents throughout the
Protestant scholars see this problem, and they try to wiggle out of it. If they admit that the Holy Spirit infallibly guided the Church in the canonization, then why stop with the Bible? Well-known Protestant Evangelical scholar John Gerstner said that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books (see http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0794-vree). But that just does not make sense. If the process is fallible, then how can the end-product be infallible? Another Protestant at a website argued that although the Church COULD have gotten it wrong, they got it right(see http://www.paultastic.com/showpage/HowDoWeKnowWhatBooksBelongInTheBible). But this writer is missing the point. He argues that although the church COULD have gotten it wrong, the church did not. But how does he know that the church did not get it wrong? On what bass does he know that the Church got it right? I, as a Catholic, know the Church got it right because Jesus promised the Church leaders that they will be guided into all truth. Since I believe the Church CANNOT be wrong in general, I know that the Church is actually not wrong in the canonization of scripture. But since this writer believes that the Church in general can be wrong, how does he know that the Church is right in this instance?
Protestants are reduced to an argument based on feeling – I know that the whole bible is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that this is the Word of God. But a Mormon says the same thing about the book of Mormon. The Muslims says the same thing about the Q’uran. And some Christians feel the moving of the Holy Spirit when they read C.S. Lewis (a friend of mine who went to a liberal Baptist seminary once argued with me that some of C. S. Lewis’ Books may be just as much part of the Word of God as any other New Testament book). Without an objective bass, we are left to our subjective feelings. If any book gives someone a blessing in his bosom or a quiver in his liver, then on what basis can somebody refute this? Why should our feelings be valid and someone else’s is false? The Catholic has an objective standard. He believes the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is the Word of God because the Church tells him to. It is not based on mere feelings. It is based on the Church, which has been there for 2,000 years since the time of Christ.
The Bible itself is part of tradition
Tradition means “to hand down” from generation to generation. Not many Christians know this, but we do not have the original New Testament. There is no museum that holds the original text. So far, archeologists have not found the originals. So that means, like it or not, that the only way we have the Bible today is THROUGH the Catholic Church! What happened is this. Matthew wrote his gospel. Then a Christian (or maybe more) in the early second century painstakingly made a copy of that original. Then another Christian would transcribe that in another copy. And so and so on. This is what people had to do before the invention of the printing press. Especially Catholic monks in the Middle Ages would do this, since they had time on their hands to do such long, tedious work.
This, again, is a tremendous problem for the Protestant. If the Church is guilty of corrupting the gospel, then would not the Church also be guilty of corrupting the Bible? This is exacty what the Mormons said (see http://wri.leaderu.com/mormonism/bible.html). The Bible has been corrupted. Who corrupted the Bible? The Catholic Church! Because the Catholic Church corrupted the Bible so much, according to Mormons, it is impossible to determine what the apostles originally wrote. That is why God rose up another prophet, Joseph Smith, to re-reveal the truth that the Church took out of the Bible. That is why it was necessary for Smith to write a new Word of God – the Book of Mormon.
At least the Mormons are being consistent. But Protestants are being inconsistent. On one hand they are very distrustful of any Catholic tradition, but they want to hold to the Bible, which was preserved through Catholic tradition.
The New
The apostles spent most of their time evangelizing and building disciples. Most of the original twelve apostles never wrote anything in the Bible. Most of the time they taught the people orally, not in writing. Paul only wrote letters when he heard that a church he built was having problems. He only wrote the letters to deal with those problems. He had no intention of teaching them everything they had to know about the Christian faith in his letters. For instance, we would not known what Paul taught about the gifts of the Holy Spirit if it was not for the Corinthian church abusing these gifts.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours
2 Thess 2:15
The same Greek word is used as when Jesus said “You nullify the command of God with the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). So in one sense the Bible condemns tradition. In another sense the Bible commands us to hold fast to the tradition handed down by the apostles or written down.
The New Testament use of Jewish Tradition
In spite of Jesus admonishing the Jewish leaders against using the tradition of men to nullify the commands of God, the New Testament had a very high view of oral Jewish Tradition, as if it held the Word of God! Here are some examples:
and came and dwelt in a city called
Matthew 2:23
I remember an atheist using this verse to prove that the Bible has errors. He would argue “I check throughout the whole Old Testament, and nowhere did I read that the coming Messiah would be from
We are so used to the age of the printing press, newspapers, book, radios, and tv’s, that we do not understand how people in those times passed on information from one generation to another. They did it through memorization. So a prophet spoke the truth that the Messiah shall be called a Nazarene, and that generation would pass that truth to their children. And then those children passed it on to their children. And so on, and so on. In fact, the Jewish Talmud is a collection of many of the sayings that were orally transmitted from one generation to another.
2 Tim 3:8
The names Jannes and Jambres were never mentioned in the Old Testament. So how did Paul know this? Even though that was never written in the Old Testament, it was passed on by Jewish Tradition. It may be argued that Paul did not have to rely on Tradition, it could have been revealed to him directly by God. But the way Paul writes this is as a matter-of-fact; he seems to assume that this was common knowledge to his readers. It seems to me that this was something they knew from tradition.
But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee
Jude 1:9
Again, Jude is citing an incident that is not recorded in the Old Testament. It was part of Jewish tradition, but it was not part of the written Word of God at that time. So the question “Where is that in the Bible?” can be asked of even of Jude. Jude used tradition as being authoritative in knowing what happened to Moses.
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
Mathew 23:1-4
Where did Jesus get this idea of the seat of Moses? Again, it is not found in the Bible. But not only does Jesus have this idea, He endorses it. The Jewish Tradition taught the Jews that the Pharisees had an authority to tell the people what to do. Jesus definitely agreed with this! Jesus condemn the Pharisses for their hypocrisy. He condemned the Pharisees for their walk not matching their talk, but He still commanded the Jewish people to “do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do”.
God has placed certain people to have authority over us. It is our responsibility to obey them. Our faith is not in them, but God, who is the One who is ultimately in control. The prophets in the Old Testament had to be deal with much corruption in their time, and sometimes even their own leaders had them put to death. But in spite of how corrupt the Old Covenant establishment became, these prophets never encouraged the people to leave
And Jesus is reinforcing that. He said to obey what they say, not what they do. This can at times be also said of the Catholic Church. There have been a few bad apples in the Church. No Catholic would deny that. Not many, but there were a few bad popes and definitely some bad bishops and priests. My submission to them has nothing to do with their characters. I have eyes. I can see some were pretty bad. My faith is not in them. My faith is in God, who can work through bad popes, bad bishops, and bad priests. So I do not do as they do. I do what they teach. And I believe that God will never allow the leaders of the church to lead us astray. Jesus promised that the gates of death and hell shall not prevail against his church. So no matter how bleak it may appears, even with the child molestation scandal, I know that God is in charge.
2 Tim 2:2
From this verse we can see what tradition is all about. Tradition means to pass on. Paul tells Timothy to pass on what he learned from Paul to faithful men. And these faithful men should then pass on to others. Truth is safeguarded by close, personal, one-on-one discipleship.
49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
John 11
Caiaphas was a very bad man. He was one of the chief instigators of the plot to arrest and kill Jesus. And yet John said that this bad man prophesied. He soke the Word of God! God spoke through him! How can this be? Obviously this man was not a holy man. He was not the kind who was filled with the Holy Spirit. And yet he was a prophet! How come?
John himself gives us the clue. He was able to prophesy not because of his holy character, but because of his office – “He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied”. It was only because he was the high priest that year that he could speak the Word of God.
And look at what he prophesied, he said “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” Caiaphas obviously did mean that Jesus’ death would bring redemption to mankind, but that is exactly what God meant! So Caiaphas meant evil when he said it – he wanted Jesus to be the scapegoat. God meant something good from those words – He meant Jesus to be our Savior.
So if Caiaphas, no matter how unholy he was, can say God’s truth to us, in spite of himself, then why could not the pope, even a bad pope, whom Jesus selected to be the rock of the church, say God’s truth to us, even in spite of himself?
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25
The Bible itself admits that it is not an exhaustive record of everything about Jesus. We Catholics believe that whatever the Bible teaches is 100% true. But that does not mean that everything that Jesus said and did is in the Bible. Some are written in the Bible. And some were handed down orally through tradition.
In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: `It is more blessed to give than to receive
Acts 20:35
How did Paul now this? He never met Jesus when Jesus was on earth. And this saying of Jesus was not recorded in any of the gospels. And we cannot say that Paul knew this by some special revelation from God, because he said to his listeners “remember the words the Lord Jesus himself said …”. By telling the other Christians to remember this, he assumes that this saying was common knowledge at that time. But how could these Christians have known this saying of Jesus if it was not written down? The only way they could have known was through word-of-mouth. It was only through oral tradition.
The Early Church Fathers’ teaching on Tradition
What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches? (Against Heresies ibid., 3:4:1).
Origen
Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
Athanasius
But you 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, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able ( Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330], 29).
See http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
Conclusion
We need more than just the Bible. The Bible alone does not tell us which documents should be in the Bible. The Bible itself does not say that what we believe should be from the Bible. We need tradition. Since we do not have the original copies of the New Testament, but only what was preserved through tradition, we need tradition just to know what is in the Bible. If we cannot trust Tradition, then how can we trust the Bible which was preserved through tradition?
The Bible itself has a high view of tradition. Just as the New Testament writers quoting the Old Testament shows their high view of the Old Testament, so does their use of Jewish Tradition shows their high view of Tradition.
But Tradition is not enough. It brings us closer to the brass ring, but it is not quite there. Our Orthodox and Anglican brothers stop at tradition, but our Protestant brothers are correct that not all of tradition can be accepted as face value. There is good tradition and bad tradition. So how do we tell the good tradition that is in tradition? Some Protestants say that they will accept tradition as long as it conform to the Bible. But who decides what conforms to the Bible. If left to each believer, you will get thousands of ideas of what conforms to the Bible. Besides that, this is circular reasoning. If tradition is used to help to understand what the bible really says, then how can we use the Bible to determine true tradition?
This is why we Catholics say that we need something along with scripture and tradition. We need the living Magisterium, a vehicle whereby God can talk to us now so that we can correctly apply scripture and tradition to our situation now. We need a Magisterium that is living today, so that it can correct us when we go astray. A living magisterium can tell us when we misinterpreted scripture or when we misapply tradition. Scripture and tradition cannot do that. Those who wrote scripture are long dead. And those within tradition are dead. They cannot provide feedback. Only a living Magisterium can do this. And both scripture and tradition point the Magisterium as the Rock for the Church. Jesus said to Peter “You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church”. He said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Any church not built on the Rock, Peter, is built on sifting sand. Although these Protestant Churches started with the premise that the Bible is God’s infallible Word, it is ironic how the liberal Protestants, who reject God's Word church, that can be traced back to the Reformers. These mainline Protestant churches that were started by Luther, Calvin, and others now reject what these Reformers taught. The Reformers taught sola scriptura. But most mainline Protestant theologians today reject the idea of scripture being the Word of God. Instead, they teach that scriptures are merely fallible writings of mere men who were just giving their opinions of what they thought Christianity was about, or they believe that only parts of the Bible contains God's Word. They deny the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and even the deity of Christ. They say that the first five books of Moses were not written by Moses at all, but by at least three different authors at different times, at least a thousand years after the time of Moses. They teach that the Gospels of Matthew and John were not written by Matthew of John, but were written in the second century. They deny that most of Paul’s letters were written by Paul. They read the Bible using the “historical critical method”, analyzing it like it is a frog specimen to be dissected in a chemistry class, rather than reading it on their knees and trembling at God’s Word.
A few Christians have left these mainline churches, and formed churches that try to be faithful to God’s Word – churches like the Baptist churches and the Assemblies of God. And they have vibrant churches, alive with the Holy Spirit. But looking at Protestantism’s history, it is only a matter of time that these churches will also slide to the left. For instance, I remember while in seminary of hearing how the seminaries of the Southern Baptist Church were starting to accept the liberal views of the Bible. And after these churches slide to the left, a few Christians will split from them and start vibrant churches again. This is the modus operandi of Protestantism. A church starts off alive and vibrant. The members’ children or grandchildren do not have the vision or love for God. They start compromising with the world. They become lukewarm. A few Christians get tired of this, and leave to start a new church. And so the cycle goes on again.
But this is not so with the Catholic Church. In spite of the Catholic Church being much older that the churches that came out of the Reformation, it still holds the Bible as being the infallible Word of God. In spite of the Catholic Church not believing in sola scriptura, the Church has always taught that it is the inerrant Word of God. No amount of modern historical criticism will ever change that. Sure, there have been some Catholic theologians who have gone astray. But the Pope, the successor of Peter the Rock, has always been a Rock against the tide of change. This is not of his doing. The Pope can only be our Rock because of Jesus Christ, the ultimate Rock.
