Systematic Theology (Vol 1) - Hodge - IX - Chapter 5 (Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the rule of faith) continued

Required reading
Systematic Theology Volume 1 by Charles Hodge (Available from Amazon or free here) - Continue Chapter 5 (Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the rule of faith) by reading up to the heading '7. Office of the church as a teacher').

My summary
Today Hodge begins to critique Roman Catholic Doctrine, in particular their teaching on tradition.

Hodge gives a good summary on this matter in the middle of the reading: 'The real status quoestionis on this subject, as between Romanists and Protestants, is not (1) Whether the Spirit of God leads true believers into the knowledge of the truth ; nor (2) whether true Christians agree in all essential matters as to truth and duty ; nor (3) whether any man can safely or innocently dissent from this common faith of the people of God ; but (4) whether apart from the revelation contained in the Bible, there is another supplementary and explanatory revelation, which has been handed down outside of the Scriptures, by tradition. In other words, whether there are doctrines, institutions, and ordinances, having no warrant in the Scriptures, which we as Christians are bound to receive and obey on the authority of what is called common consent. This Romanists affirm and Protestants deny. '

Hodge then goes on to give reasons why Protestants deny such a theory of tradition.  The Romish doctrine:
(i) involves a natural impossibility;
(ii) is unphilosophical and irreligious to assume a supernatural intervention on the part of God without promise and without proof;
(iii) admits that many false traditions have prevailed in different ages and in different parts of the Church;
(iv) is not adapted to the purpose of the rule of faith;
(v) is falsely supposing an obscurity of the Scriptures;
(vi) is subverting the authority of the Scriptures;
(vii) teaches error;
(viii) falsely argue that Protestants concede the authority of tradition.

What grabbed me
I appreciated this argument against the obscurity of the Scriptures: 'Romanists argue that such is the obscurity of the Scriptures, that not only the people, but the Church itself needs the aid of tradition in order to their being properly understood. But if the Bible, a comparatively plain book, in one portable volume, needs to be thus explained, What is to explain the hundreds of folios in which these traditions are recorded ? Surely a guide to the interpretation of the latter must be far more needed than one for the Scriptures. '

So true!

Next week's reading
Conclude Chapter 5 (Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the rule of faith).

Now it's your turn
Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.