When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 29

 

This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.

There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. 

Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.

In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of: 

• The sect's history
• Their theology
• Tips on how to share the True Faith with them

Protestantism

Note to my readers: This will be a two part post. The follow-up will be next month. This series of posts, "When Strangers Come Knocking"(WSCK) gets the fewest number of readers per month on a consistent basis. I would like for you to comment and let me know (a) if you like the series or not (please state a reason) and (b) if you think it's worthwhile to continue with this series of posts. If a majority feel that my time would be better off spent on other subjects, I will soon end this series. Thank you all!---Introibo

[This post is complied from a multitude of sources. I take no credit. Of special note are several articles from American Ecclesiastical Review, one specifically referenced below, and theologian Rooney, Preface to the Bible, (1949]---Introibo). 

Protestantism is not a monolithic sect. Rather it is a multiplicity of sects originating in the 16th century with the so-called "Reformation" begun by apostate priest Martin Luther. Others who played a big role include King Henry VIII of England, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli. To attempt a history would take many posts. All Protestants have two (false) doctrines in common: (1) sola scripture (the Bible as the sole rule of Faith), and (2) sola fide (justification by faith alone). The best way to convert any Protestant is to show the flaws in these two doctrines. This post will tackle sola scriptura, and next month sola fide. 

The Meaning of Sola Scriptura

The Protestant understanding of sola scriptura means that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the Christians. All that must be believed and is necessary to salvation is in Scripture alone, and there is no Sacred Tradition as a source of Revelation. The teaching of the One True Church is that there are Two Sources of Divine Revelation, the Bible and Sacred Tradition. 

Sola Scriptura is wrong on at least four counts: (a) it is self-refuting since the Bible itself doesn't teach sola scriptura, (b) the "traditions of men" condemned in Scripture is not the sacred Tradition with a capital "T," (c) it goes contrary to history, and (d) the Magisterium is clearly referenced in Holy Scripture.

1. Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. 

The Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith states:

The whole purpose of God about everything pertaining to his own glory and to man’s salvation, faith, and life is either explicitly stated in the Bible or may be deduced as inevitably and logically following from it…The infallible standard for the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. And so any question about the true and complete sense of a passage in the Bible…can be answered by referring to other passages which speak more plainly. (See epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf). 

Does the Bible teach this principle?  2 Timothy 3:16-17, a common proof text for Sola Scriptura:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

It is not stated anywhere that Scripture alone is the infallible source of Christian doctrine. Also note that St. Paul is speaking about the Old Testament, because the New Testament had yet to be completed. How do you know what books are in the Bible? Only an extrinsic source can tell you the Canon of Scripture, as Scripture itself is silent on the issue. Let's look at another favorite verse of Protestants from the Book of the Apocalypse (or "Revelation" as they call it):

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Apoc. 22:18-19). 

Stating  that you cannot add or take away from a text is not equivalent to saying the Scriptures alone are the infallible rule of faith. It does not state there is nothing else in Divine Revelation to which we must listen. Some Protestants attempt to sidestep this problem. Here is what one such Protestant apologist had to say--and note well he thinks the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church:

...sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is our only authority when it comes to what we believe and do as Christians – but it is our highest authority, the authority by which every other authority is to be judged...we should believe in sola scriptura is because we don’t believe that any other source of authority is inspired by God and is completely trustworthy for what we should believe and do as Christians. As Protestants we don’t believe that the Pope is infallible, even when he speaks ex cathedra. (As a side note, Luther’s opponents in the sixteenth century clearly had a higher view of papal infallibility than the Catechism of the Catholic Church does today and certainly more than Roman Catholic apologists do today. I wonder if this is because, from our perspective today, it is all too clear that popes can and do make serious theological mistakes).  (See https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/no-sola-scriptura-is-not-found-in-the-bible-but-that-was-never-the-point; Emphasis mine). Notice how the disdain for papal authority is evidenced in what he has to say regarding "Catholic" apologists. Some Protestants now say the Bible is the highest authority; this is what sola scriptura really means. If so, we will see what the highest authority commands next.

2. The Bible Commands we follow Sacred Tradition.

The Bible condemns the traditions of men :

St. Matthew 15:3,  He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

St. Matthew 15:6, So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.

St. Matthew 15:9, in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines

Galatians 1:9-12, As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

The Bible commands Apostolic [Sacred] tradition to be followed:

2 Thessalonians 2:15, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6, Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2, I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Peter 2:21, For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them.

Therefore, if the Bible commands the Sacred Traditions are to be kept, they must be of equal value as the Scriptures because both must be maintained and followed. 

3. Sola Scriptura runs counter to Church history.

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

• The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (St. Matthew 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
•  In St. Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
•  In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. However, rabbinic tradition does.
•  "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage ( Exodus 7:8) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

The Bible records the history of the nascent Church accepting Sacred Tradition. In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-30), we see Sts.Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Ghost) that was binding on all Christians. In the next chapter, we read that St. Paul, St. Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). 

4. The Magisterium is clearly referenced in Sacred Scripture. 

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Ephesians 4:11-15)

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church is necessary to interpret and apply Scripture. Both Scripture and Tradition are the Two Sources of Revelation. 

The Theologians on Sacred Tradition

[Complied from theologian Francis Connell, Are All Revealed Truth in Sacred Scripture? American Ecclesiastical Review, May 1962, pgs. 303-314].  

St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., (1542-1621) wrote: "It is necessary to know that there are some books that are truly divine, and this certainly cannot be had from Scriptures… Hence, this so necessary a dogma, that there is divine Scripture, cannot sufficiently be had from Scripture alone. Accordingly, since faith is based on the word of God, we shall have no faith unless we have the unwritten word of God."

Suarez, S.J., (1548-1617) asserted: "According to the true and Catholic faith it cannot be denied that besides Scripture there is in the Church of Christ the word of God, not written in canonical books, which must be accepted with the same faith as the written word."

Gonet, O.P., (1616-81) declared: "I say that besides Scripture there are unwritten traditions pertaining to the rule of faith… There are three types of traditions. Some are immediately from Christ, and these are divine; some from the apostles with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and these are apostolic; some which begin with the prelates of the people, and which obtained the force of law by use and custom, and these are ecclesiastical. The first two have the same force and certitude as the written word of God because they are based on the same authority as the written word. "

Witasse (1660-1716), writing in question-answer form, has the following: "Q. What is tradition? A. It is the word of God not written by the sacred authors. Q. Does this word enjoy the same authority as the written word of God? A. It would be foolish to think otherwise, for the word of God does not draw its authority from writing, but on the contrary, writing derives its authority from the word of God." As an example of unwritten tradition he gives the canon of Sacred Scripture "which is known to us only from Tradition. Scripture does not manifest it."

C. Billuart, O.P., (1685-1757) lays down the principle that "in addition (praeter) to Sacred Scripture divine tradition must necessarily be admitted" and then adds as an example: "Whence do the heretics know that Sacred Scripture, which they commend so highly, is sacred and divine? Not from Scripture itself… It is only from tradition that we know that this and no other scripture is sacred and divine."

St. Alphonsus Liguori, C.SS.R., (1696-1787) wrote: "Traditions are those truths which were first communicated by Jesus Christ or by the Holy Ghost to the apostles, then by the apostles were given to the disciples, and thus under the guidance of the Holy Ghost without interruption were, so to say, transmitted by hand and communicated up to the present time. These traditions, which are the unwritten word of God, have the same authority as the written word of God . . . Traditions are necessary that belief may be given to many articles of faith . . . about which nothing at all exists in scriptures, so that these truths have come to us only from the font of tradition."

N. Bergier (1715-90) thus proposes the subject: "The great question between Protestants and Catholics is to know if there are some divine or apostolic traditions touching dogmas which are in no wise contained in Sacred Scripture, and which are nevertheless a rule of faith. Protestants deny it, we sustain the opposite."

B. Liebermann (1759-1844) wrote: "Sacred Scripture is not perfect in the sense that it embraces the whole religion of Christ. If Scripture were perfect and the only source of Christian doctrine, it should before all tell us which books belong to Sacred Scripture. But it is entirely silent (omnino silet) about this dogma of supreme importance."

J. Perrone, S.J., (1794-1876) wrote: "Besides Sacred Scripture, divine and dogmatic traditions must be admitted, entirely distinct from Scripture… We have added that we must admit such traditions entirely distinct from Scripture to exclude the view of Protestants regarding traditions merely inherent and declarative."

J. Franzelin, S.J., (1816-1886) wrote much about tradition, and clearly upheld the old view. For example, he stated: "After the apostles and after the completion of the inspired writings the Church propagated by the apostles always professed, theoretically and practically, that some truths are divinely revealed which she had received, not from the Scripture but only from tradition."

A. Bonal, S.S., (1827-1904) whose manual of theology went through seventeen editions in the latter half of the nineteenth century, says: "Divine tradition is an entirely distinct source (locus) of Christian revelation, not only because it manifests that revelation in the state of the living and practical word, but also because it contains revealed truths which are not contained in the divine Scripture." This proposition Bonal declares to be an article of faith.

J. Hermann, C.SS.R., (1849-1927) makes these statements: "The unwritten word of God must be admitted as a source of revelation and of faith, independent of Scripture. . . . Divine traditions have the same force as Sacred Scripture, inasmuch as they have the same authority as the divine word of God." Both these propositions, the author asserts, are to be believed with divine-catholic faith, because of the Tridentine decree.

A. Tanquerey, S.S., (1854-1932) in his textbook for seminaries, asserts: "There exists divine tradition, as a font of revelation distinct from Scripture." This he says is de fide. He defines tradition as "revealed doctrine on faith or morals, not related in the Sacred Scriptures, committed by God to the Church and infallibly transmitted by legitimate pastors. "

G. Van Noort, says: "Tradition is a source of revelation distinct from Scripture, and goes beyond the data of Scripture. This is a dogma of faith from the Council of Trent and from the Vatican Council. The first part of the proposition states the existence of tradition in general and consequently includes inherent tradition; the second part refers specifically to constitutive tradition."

J. Salaverri, S.J., asserts: "Scripture needs tradition as a font of revelation to establish its divine authority. For the fact of inspiration, on which the divine authority of Scripture depends, is a truth per se revealed; therefore it must be contained in the fonts of revelation. But the fact of inspiration of all and each of the books of the New Testament is known only from divine tradition." And the author states that "it is a doctrine of divine faith, solemnly defined in the Councils, especially Trent and Vatican I, that Scripture and tradition are two fonts of divine revelation, endowed with equal authority."

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that the first of the two "pillars of the Reformation" can't stand. By removing the Church as the Guardian and interpreter of Sacred Scripture, Luther and his fellow heretics began the path leading us to where we are today in the Great Apostasy. Everyone became their own "Scripture interpreter," and sects multiplied quickly with the passing whims of each era. People began to wonder if Christian truth was knowable as there were so many competing claims as to what the Bible "really means."  As the great G.K. Chesterton said, "The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."