The Roman Catholic Church And Apostolic Tradition

• Preliminary Points:

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Scripture alone is an insufficient guide for Christian doctrine and that Jesus Christ gave the twelve apostles infallible oral tradition to pass on to future generations through the Magisterium. It is claimed that we need to submit to an infallible interpreter of Scripture in order to properly understand its message.
          -Apologists for these groups have attempted to construct a biblical case for their their church's claims by citing various Scripture passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15, John 20:30, 2 John 12, 3 John 13, John 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, and 1 Corinthians 11:2.
          -It is true that the Bible never presents itself as the only authority for the church. However, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the final court of authority in all religious matters. Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church to use. Therefore, people who object to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by using a faulty definition (that the Bible is the only authority) are attacking a strawman. Quoting Scripture passages that affirm the existence of other authoritative sources does not refute Sola Scriptura. Scripture is our final standard of authority, not only source of authority.
          -It is self-contradictory to appeal to the Bible as the ultimate standard of authority to prove that it is not the ultimate standard of authority for the church to heed to. It is a hypocritical double standard for Roman Catholics and the Orthodox to use Scripture as a means to justify their doctrines, but disapproving of Protestants acting in the same manner. These points are some of the fallacies committed by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists when they argue against Sola Scriptura by appealing to Scripture passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

• Clarifying That Sola Scriptura Is Not Opposed To All Forms Of Tradition: 

          -It needs to be understood that Protestantism is not opposed to "traditions," as long as they are consistent with the principles of Scripture.
          -If the "traditions" mentioned in the above references are grounded on Scripture, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not at all in jeopardy. But if this can be shown to not be the case, then this teaching would be soundly refuted because the Bible itself would be admitting to the charge that we need an infallible interpreter and extra-biblical tradition. Remember also that Scripture is written tradition.

• Do 2 Thessalonians 2:15 And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?:

          -The previous context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (v. 1-14) reveals that the Apostle Paul is speaking of traditions pertaining to the second coming of Christ which should be measured against apostates who pervert the truths concerning that doctrine, eternal salvation, and the gospel. These topics are addressed in great depth throughout both Testaments (Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14:1-9; Matthew 24:5-27; Psalm 22-23; Isaiah 53; John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; etc.). Hence, there is no need to depend on extra-biblical oral traditions.
          -2 Thessalonians 3:6 refers to teaching regarding working and not being idle. Consider texts such as Psalm 128:2, Proverbs 21:25, and 2 Thessalonians 3:10. The Apostle Paul was not trying to establish a distinction in content between the oral and written revelation, but rather demonstrates the unity of his message when communicated in both forms.

• Does 1 Corinthians 11:2 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The immediate context is about the purposes of men and women in worship and in terms authority (v, 3-16). Then, the Apostle Paul goes on to talk about the correct observance and practice pertaining to the Lord's Supper (v. 17-31). Later on, he goes on to identify traditions, which he himself previously received, as the basic message of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). None of these oral traditions are mysterious in nature or foreign to scriptural instruction.

• Do John 20:30, John 21:25, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The passages from John do not say that not all the teachings of Jesus were written in Scripture, but rather all the miracles he performed were not recorded. Scripture tells us everything that we need to know concerning salvation (John 20:31).
          -The logic employed by our critics here is self-defeating because Roman Catholic tradition does not furnish us with all the details of Jesus' life.
          -Anybody (including Mormons) can abuse Scripture passages like these by claiming that we need the doctrines of his or her religion. They can be misused to open up doors to just about any heretical doctrine. We need to know exactly what John is talking about in the above passages. In other words, it is wrong to make assertions that are devoid of evidence.
          -Why just assume that 2 John 12 and 3 John 13 are about infallible oral revelation that gets passed on to posterity, when none of them indicate specifically what the contents are? In light of this, it is equally possible for the "unknown materials" to be from other parts of the New Testament, a public rebuke of sin or heresy, or even personal details about his life or close companions such as his fellow ministers, the apostles.
          -2 John 12 and 3 John 13 simply indicate that the Apostle John decided not to write down every single detail of what he intended on saying in his epistles. He wanted to speak directly to his audience for the sake of his audience's comfort, joy, and edification. How do we know that what John spoke of would have been different in substance than what is found in written revelation?

• Conditions That Need To Be Met: 

          -If it is going to be claimed that the apostles spoke of infallible tradition as being something different from Scripture, then:
          1.) The exact traditions need to be identified (not specified by the quoted verses above).
          2.) It needs to be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the word "tradition" mentioned within the specific texts of Scripture are different in substance from what is contained in the Bible (not specified by the quoted passages, either).
          3.) Conclusive evidence needs to be provided in order for any random tradition to be considered apostolic and infallible.
          -Although Roman Catholics claim that we need their oral tradition, they cannot produce any sayings of Jesus Christ or the apostles that are absent from Scripture.

• Are The Traditions Of The Roman Catholic Church Equal To Or Superior To The Bible In Terms Of Authority?:

          -The Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees for placing their own traditions on the same level of authority as the written Word of God (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). This scenario is a mirror reflection to the modern day Roman Catholic Churche because it places an unscriptural body of oral traditions on par with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church, like the Scribes and Pharisees of the Law, maintains that its tradition is of divine origin. Any and all tradition must be evaluated in accordance with Scripture.

• Historical Evidence Of Failure:

          -History has proven that when anything has been given the same authority as Scripture, that object of devotion always ends up superseding its authority and consequently produces dangerously false doctrines. For instance, the Mormons accept other writings as inspired by God. The Jehovah's Witnesses accept the Watchtower Society and its magazine publications as divinely inspired by God. Other Pseudo-Christian groups who make absolute claims to authority in doctrinal matters (and other aspects of life) would include (but are by no means limited to) Scientology and the Unification Church. The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has fallen into the same grievous error for its inflated perspective of "oral tradition" and its claims to perpetual infallibility, just as the Scribes and Pharisees were in error for upholding the same views regarding their man-made traditions. The underlying issue is pride amongst religious leaders.