Question:
I have seen some non-catholics who believe simply in SS and they dare Catholics to list at least one tradition that is accepted by Christians that it not recorded in scripture, thus their defense that Sola Scripture is true and does not need Tradition nor a Magisterium.
Would say that infant baptism is a tradition not actually recorded in scripture? I know that scripture talks about "all" in households being baptised and surely infants were in some households, but correct me if I'm wrong that nowhere is the wording "baptize infants" found in the bible.
It is recorded by some of the Early Fathers in favor of infant baptism, i.e. AUGUSTINE:"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]), and many others.
I know too that some Christians do not accept infant baptism, but then again that is what gets them into trouble by believing solely in Sola Scripture.
Would you say that the Canon of the Bible is another one of those Traditions not recorded in Scripture?
Thank you for your reply and God Bless.
|
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM+
Dear Charles:
The problem with the Sola Scriptura people is that they tend to develop bugaboo words without an understanding of fundamental definitions of those words. The word "tradition" is one of those bugaboo words for them.
These people presume (wrongly) that tradition always means a man-made tradition. The Bible uses the term tradition in two ways: 1) traditions of men; 2) Tradition as the teaching of the Word of God handed down from generation to generation.
The Bible is Tradition -- tradition in written form. So if tradition is to be ignored, we will have to ignore the Bible since it too is "tradition".
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this.
On your examples, yes, the term "infant baptism" is not in the Bible, but is STRONGLY implied by the fact that whole households were baptized. In Biblical times to say that the whole household was baptized meant every single person in the household -- adults, children, and slaves.
The Books that comprise the Bible is a result of Tradition. No where in the Bible is there a list of valid books that consist of the bible. If we were to go only by what the Bible says, then we can have no Bible, since the Bible does not proclaim a list of its contents.
Sunday School is not in the Bible; Church buildings are not in the Bible, calling ministers "Reverend" is not in the Bible, the order of worship found in Protestant fellowships is not found in the Bible, playing piano or organ during the worship service is not in the Bible, a local church drawing up a Constitution and By-Laws is not in the Bible, associations of churches in the manner like the Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptist Convention, etc. are not in the Bible, justification by faith alone is NO WHERE in the Bible (the only place were the words "faith alone" appear in the Bible is in the Book of James where St. James says that "justification is NOT by faith alone"), once-saved-always-saved is not explicitly in the Bible, the Whore of Babylon being the Catholic Church is nowhere in the Bible, Dispensationalist theology is not explicitly in the Bible, radio and TV sermons are not in the Bible, Protestants are not in the Bible (but Catholics are in the Bible).
It is a foolish and stupid idea to believe in Sola Scriptura -- a notion that is unBiblical and nonsensical. "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent" is a phrase of inherent hypocrisy. If we were truly be silent where the Bible is silent, then we could not have Sunday School, for example, or any of the other things in the partial list above.
For some additional thoughts on this subject see: Scripture and Tradition
God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary
|