One of the key differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology¹ is the Catholic acceptance of tradition as equal authority with the Bible.

So there we have it in their own words. Oral Traditions by anonymous people are divinely inspired and God's revelation to humans did not end with the Bible but continues in the Catholic Church.

B) Among other proofs the Catholics offer:

1. Judaism recognized the written Law (Torah) along with oral tradition.

(known as the Mishna (Here)

a. To the contrary, Christianity rejected Jewish Oral law (see Matthew 15: Mark 7).

2. They then say, Christianity from the beginning rested on oral teachings and was not and was never intended to be a religion of "the book."

3) Jesus also proves that it was oral tradition has validity. Jesus never wrote anything down or left writings of any type.

C) Furthermore, Jesus told the apostles to "preach" and not to write. (Matt. 28:19ff).

1) If after 30 or 40 years passed and the idea came to writes these teachings of Jesus down they did it certainly by divine disposition demonstrating the Divinity of Christ (John 20:31), however, the apostles never made these writings on the commandments of Jesus.

2) Besides, even with their writings, they did not intend to write all the teachings of Jesus down but only the principal parts.

D) Scriptural Proofs of the above statements are as follows:

1. Romans 10:16__"Faith comes by hearing" and not by writing.

2. II Thessalonians' 2:15____"So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by epistles of ours."

3. II Thessalonians 3:6' __"Now we command you, brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly, and not after the tradition you have received."

4. I Corinthians 15: 1-3__"Brethren, now I make known to you the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received, where in also you stand, if you hold fast the Word which I preached to you. For I delivered to you first of all that which I received."

a. This "preaching" which Paul "transmitted" regarded doctrine, faith and morals.

b. I Corinthians 4:17__"For this cause have I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church."

c. I Corinthians 7:17__"Only as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hat called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches."

d. I Corinthians 11:2__ "Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."

e. II Timothy 1:13__"Hold the pattern of sound words which you have heard (not read) from me, in faith and love in Christ Jesus."

f. II Timothy 2:2__"And the things which thou has heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit to faithful men who shall be able to teach others. "

g. II John 12__ same as III John 13:__"Having many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write to you with ink and pen, but I hope to come to you shortly to see you, and to speak face to face with you."

h. The Scriptures never claim to be the only fountain of faith, nor do they claim they will become the only fountain of faith after the apostles death.

a. We must consider matters of literacy at that time and the difficulty of finding writings materials.

b. The persecutions of Christians and the mass burning of the Scriptures only intensify the necessity for oral transmission.

c. The extremely high price of a copy of Scripture was beyond the financial ability of any but the very rich and not many of those ever became Christian.

The Biblical Refutation of Catholic doctrine of Tradition.

I. It may be said that in general there is a poor understanding of how God communicated His message and how that same God authenticated that message. Here are three things that ought to be considered.

1. God chose his messengers by revelation and communicated to them the message. (1st Corinthians 2:12-13; Ephesians 3:3).

2. God confirmed both the message and the messenger through miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit (see 1st Cor. 2:24; II Cor. 12:12).

3. It was by inspiration of the Holy Spirit the chosen messengers wrote the message down on the sacred pages for preservation thought out the ages. (G. Paden)

II. If then the Catholic wants to claim that post-apostolic writers are authentic sources of the Divine message, then first they need to present evidence of Divine choosing. In the absence of the above factors which we will call Divine choosing, post apostolic writings and traditions must be rejected.

II. Sola Scriptura : Catholics claim that there is no passage in the NT that makes tells us that Scripture alone is our guide. To help clarify this idea we need to draw a parallel between the OT and the NT. It then becomes clear that there is no passage in the OT that states "Sola Scriptura." Each and every book in the OT was written by a prophet of God this was confirmed by the prophets contemporaries in many cases. Later generations of scribes did not authenticate earlier generations of scribes. The generation to whom, or of whom the prophet wrote was the very people God used to preserve His message.

There are adequate affirmations in the OT that what was written was the Word of God. Those who received the message were charged not to add to or take away from what was written (Deut. 4:2; Proverbs 30:6). The first five books of the OT were written by Moses and the miracles in Egypt and the wilderness (the counterpart to NT miracles) confirmed those words of Moses as the "Word of God." Then that makes "the Law of Moses confirmed and ratified "not with our fathers, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day."(Deut. 5:2) Once again we see that the "Word of God" was confirmed by miracles to those who were alive at the time. Deut. 31:24 explains to us how the books of the OT were preserved: They were placed by the ark of the covenant of YHWH "that it may be there for a witness against you." In the same context, (Deut. 31:9-13) , Moses commanded the seasonal reading of the Law before all the people. This confirms that the religion of Israel was a religion of the book and not oral tradition.

Another interesting fact to be noted is that the Hebrew conjunction "and" connects all the OT Books through II Kings with the exception of Deuteronomy. This indicates that each prophet knew that his message was canonical and belonged to the greater whole. When later prophets wrote their revelation they did not "add" to the law but produced another part of "Divine" revelation. Thus, Isaiah 34:16 states, "Find the book of YHWY and read: not one of these shall be missing___for my mouth, it has commanded and His Spirit has gathered them." The prophets knew their message was a permanent part of God's revelation.

Deuteronomy 30:8, "Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come forever and ever."

Here is the point I think. In the New Testament Jesus only acknowledged what was written "in the Law of Moses and the prophets and Psalms." Jesus condemned any and all Jewish traditions that added to or extracted from the written Words of the Law (Matthew 15:1-14; Mark 7:1-23). Although Jesus and his apostles quoted from the OT extensively in the NT, nowhere did the quote from 'oral tradition. '

And finally we look at Hebrews 9: 4-5. The "tables of the covenant" were placed in the "ark of the covenant" in the Holy of Holies for preservation. Romans 3:2 states that the Jews, "were entrusted with the oracles of God." Though the Jews indeed had the Talmud, the Targum, and the Mishna, which were sources of Hebrew tradition, it should be evident from the quote above that the "written" records were the "tables of the covenant, " and not traditions. Paul was obviously making a reference to those traditions when he charged Timothy to insist "men not teach a different doctrine, neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies which bring about questionings (I Tim. 1:3-4). Paul further confirmed only the validity of the OT scripture: "every scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished unto every good work."(II Timothy 3:16-17).

And finally from the World Wide Web:Traditions

Here is a favorite verse quoted by Catholics to support Church Tradition, which by definition, are doctrines not to be found within the covers of any Bible-

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Well, there it is. Absolute indisputable proof that not all doctrines Jesus taught are included in scripture! Imagine all the teaching Jesus might have done that simply was not included in the Bible. Who can tell, maybe we are supposed to pray to Mary and Saints. Maybe Mary is the Immaculate Virgin and Queen of Heaven. Who could deny that these and other doctrines of Tradition might just be true, but are part of the unrecorded doctrines this verse speaks of?

If you encounter this kind of Catholic logic then direct them to the following verses-

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Well this puts a different light on the same subject doesn't it! Here John, the very same author, is saying that the Bible contains everything you need to come to a saving faith. Clearly John is saying that by believing in Jesus Christ (faith) you are saved (have life). John has seen to it that a sufficient number of Jesus' miracles are recorded that you can come to believe in Him and be saved. John speaks of some of what Jesus did as being unrecorded, signs, miracles, etc., but does not even hint at unrecorded doctrines essential for salvation, in fact he adequately refutes such a notion.

So, rather that having a hole (21:25) big enough to drive a truck through (filled with unbiblical doctrines), the book of John completely closes off any attempt to introduce spurious doctrines under the guise of Tradition (20:30-31). Not even a church mouse can get through!

Curious thing about the Catholic Doctrines of Mary, some of them have been declared by the church to be articles of faith. That is to say that you can not be saved if you fail to accept them (at least if you claim to be Catholic). Isn't this in direct opposition to what John is saying in chapter 20:30-31? Indeed it is! According to John, everything needed for a saving faith IS written down in scripture!

Home

Next we address the question of "Is the Church the source of the truth?"