Scripture and Tradition

As promised, I will start posting snippets of some work I have done on the above stated topic.

The Catholic Catechism teaches that although there is “one common source” of Divine revelation, there are “two distinct modes of transmission” . Although all of the Word of God (revelation) is seen as Divine, the Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments and reverence.”
In other words, this position holds that there are teachings that were handed down from the first century to our present day that were not recorded in Scripture but which are as infallibly inspired as the written Word of God itself. Additionally, it is impossible not to mention the conviction of the Roman Catholic Church that by virtue of apostolic succession and magisterial authority allegedly given to the church by God, ecumenical councils and papal leaders can and do make interpretive pronouncements and proclamations that are to be considered divine in origin and thus infallible.
In current discussion papers being produced by scholars who have worked on the document entitled, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, it is evident that there is not a clear consensus on how this ‘dual-track’ revelation is to be understood. In the paper entitled “Your Word is Truth”, (signed by Avery Cardinal Dulles, Dr. James Buckley and Father Thomas Guarino, in addition to numerous evangelical leaders) the following is stated:
We who are Catholics must likewise address the widespread misunderstanding in our community that tradition is an addition to Holy Scripture or a parallel and independent source of authoritative teaching…Together we affirm that Scripture is the divinely inspired and uniquely authoritative written revelation of God; as such it is normative for the teaching and life of the Church. We also affirm that tradition, rightly understood as the proper reflection of biblical teaching, is the faithful transmission of the truth of the gospel from generation to generation through the power of the Holy Spirit. As Evangelicals and Catholics fully committed to our respective heritages, we affirm together the coinherence of Scripture and tradition: tradition is not a second source of revelation alongside the Bible but must ever be corrected and informed by it…”
The last statement throws some confusion into the picture. Is this an admission from Dulles et al that Sacred Tradition is indeed fallible? An examination of the development and various interpretations of this doctrine by Catholic scholars between themselves reveals that it has at the very least been discussed vigorously and has been controversial since the Council of Trent. (to be cont'd)

[Soundbear]

"...tradition is not a second source of revelation alongside the Bible but must ever be corrected and informed by it.."

Seems to me that most Christians are guilty of the inverse of this on some topics, though not often on major doctrine.

Cont'd
The Holy Bible and Tradition
The concept of holding to an oral tradition in the Bible is depicted both in a positive and negative light. The ancient mid-eastern culture learned mainly through listening and remembering what was taught. Teaching itself was often structured around mnemonic devices that made its content conducive to aural learning. For example, Jesus' teaching style in the Gospels demonstrates the use of chiasms, parallelisms and other forms of speech that make it easier for the memory to retain what was taught.
It is thus easy to understand how in a culture that learned aurally, tradition gained importance in the transmission of truth. With reference to Jewish Scriptures, alongside of that which was written, an accumulated body of rabbinic teaching was successively handed down to first century Jews. That deposit became an interpretive guide to Scriptures. Although the religious leaders seemed to give their tradition equal rank with their holy texts, it was evident that different schools of thought developed different traditions within Judaism. This writer knows of no reference that would indicate that traditions were treated as infallible. There is no question that Jesus certainly took a strong stand against the current of tradition whenever the tradition negatively impinged on the written Word of God in some way. One example will suffice.
When the religious leaders of Jerusalem observed that Jesus` disciples had eaten with unwashed hands, they asked Him, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?” Jesus rejoindered with, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition… you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:2ff). At the very least, this elevates the authority of the Word of God above the tradition of the elders. The Pharisees regarded unwritten tradition as no less binding than the Law. Apparently, even Philo regarded tradition in this way. Although the religious leaders deemed tradition as authoritative, there is no evidence that Jesus ever taught or viewed tradition as infallibly authoritative.

However, not every mention of tradition in Scriptures is viewed negatively. Paul writes the Corinthian believers; “ I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, (i.e. traditions) just as I passed them on to you” (1 Cor 11:12). He instructs the Thessalonian church similarly (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6). The question then arises whether any of the tradition which Paul regarded as central to the Gospel which had been entrusted to him had also eventually been transmitted in written form. By Paul’s use of tradition, it is difficult from the textual evidence alone to assert that it was his intention that a part of essential divine revelation would remain unwritten; i.e. would be handed down orally. In fact, with reference to what Paul did write to the Galatians, he is very emphatic in his insistence that if anyone, be it a human or angelic messenger, brings a message other than the gospel message which he elucidated quite clearly in that letter, he should be eternally condemned.
When one adds the weight of verses such as 2 Tim3:16-17 which speaks of the absolute sufficiency of Scriptures to equip us in totality, the balance seems to tip in the direction of sola scriptura. Indeed, this verse speaks against what the Council of Trent has declared; i.e. the truth of the gospel is “Contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand…”
From a merely biblical perspective, it is also interesting to note that throughout the Old and New Testaments a prophet was not to be believed merely on the basis of his office. The assumption is that “the ring of truth” and the teaching office of the Holy Spirit who is active in the heart of the believer would be evidence enough. In the Old Testament, if a prophecy did not come about, people were free to not only reject what the prophet said, but the prophet was also to be punished. In the New Testament, a prophet’s words were weighed by the congregation, not on the basis of any kind of magisterial office, but on the basis of the truth. The assumption therefore is that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear in and of themselves to interpret themselves. Although we must consider carefully what tradition has to say, it is good and right to weigh all that is said over against Scriptures “to see whether these things be so”. The believers in Berea did this, and were lauded by the Apostle Paul for not accepting his words merely on the basis of apostolic authority.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"...tradition is not a second source of revelation alongside the Bible but must ever be corrected and informed by it.." </div></div>

Welcome to reason number 1,255 why I am Catholic, and proud of it.

If the above quote were indeed the case, I would have no disagreement with it. I agree with it as it stands. But this is the nub of the controversy within Catholicism. You have both two-source and one-source theorists.

[Soundbear]

Differences of opinion in a church?? Mercy!!!!!

There are many differences of opinion.
My friend, the prof, (do you know Stan Fowler at Heritage?) talks with RC theologians all the time. The variety of opinions on essential matters that are clearly stated as church dogma are many.

Liberalism is a big problem in the RC ranks. If they laid the hammer down on those issues, I suspect you'd have splits all over the place.

[Soundbear]

I've met Stan Fowler on several occasions, as several of my kids had bible college training. Great guy, excellent teacher, my only disagreement with him was on church autonomy!!!

You might want to read my latest blog entry.. scriptorum.blogspot.com

[Soundbear]

Individualism????

Sure. Isn't local church autonomy simply corporate individualism?

[Soundbear]

Interesting idea.
I see groups like the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada as a mutual aid organization rather than an authority over individual churches. We aren't required to have the same constitution at each church and we aren't even required to ratify the national or regional constitutions. Which is good. The fellowship would get a lot smaller real quick if it did.
Not sure how the AGC works.

Our denominational constitution is broad enough to allow for some flexibility. But I beleive we need to move away from the idea that it's "just an association".

AS far as FEB Canada is concerned, there have got to be SOME qualifications on membership.. no?

Obviously, if as a church held to baptismal regeneration, paedobaptism and sprinkling and denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, could I be a member?