Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 15:3 He replied to them, "Why also do you violate the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition [handed down by the elders]? |
Bible Question:
Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth? 'According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical. Protestantism, however, rejects Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?" 'The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says both to listen to tradition as well as warning about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below. 'In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made: '1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take, for example, the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4. The Devil tempts Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen His example? 'The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examine God's word for the test of truth, not for the traditions of men. Therefore, we can see that the biblical means of determining spiritual truth is by appealing to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.' (...) 'Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater. 'Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn’t, then I will trust the Bible alone.' ____________________ To read more go to: www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm |
Bible Answer: Kalos, It's easy to defend the Catholics on this point. The Bible the Bereans scoured was the Septuagint. The New Testament didn't yet exist (the 1st word was probably writtten about AD50, the last between AD90-100). The Bereans would have been scouring scripture in order to qualify the new traditions emerging from the church of the New Covenant, checking to see whether they were so. The Bible had to have emerged organically from Sacred Tradition; as you know, Luke could not have written his gospel and the Book of Acts without diligent, Spiritual compilation of oral tradition (Luke 1:1). Until the canon was "oficially" determined in the 4th century by Catholic Councils and Catholic popes, there was tons of debate. Utlimately, the canon of the Bible was established, among other means, by prayer and meticulous, Berean-esque checking of the texts against Sacred Tradition, without which the authority of any NT scripture could not have been established. Without the decisions of the Church we couldn't have known which Bible books were inspired. Simply put, the Bible emerged from the Church, not vice-versa. Also, by whose authority did Luther extirpate the "Apocrypha" from the canon, especially in view of the fact that Paul himself quotes widely from some of these? Colin |
Up | View Branch | ID# 137314 | ||
Questions and/or Subjects for Matt 15:3 | Author | ||
|
kalos | ||
|
kalos | ||
|
kalos | ||
|
flinkywood |