Catholic Fidelity.Com
By Dave Armstrong
This Roman Catholic doctrine since the days of Martin Luther
has become the central argument of the Authority of the words and traditions of
the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church over Scripture.
This same argument though not spoken of by name has become of great issue in
Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and Charismaticism. In that
First and Foremost the greatest majority of their preachers, teachers,
evangelists, prophets and apostles continually make their words and teachings
equal if not superior to the word of God.
Secondly these also make no bones about redacting bible
passages, chapters and even books that they do not believe or accept as it
conflicts with their man made doctrines, traditions, and systematic theologies.
Revelation 22:18 - For I testify
unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man
shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take
away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written
in this book.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I
command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the
LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What things soever
I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add
thereto, nor diminish from it.
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a (We
steadfastly disagree – Rather Scripture is THE) "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but
not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition (Understand here that what is meant by Apostolic
Tradition here includes: Binding Authority of Papal Traditions) and the Church (This speaks to: A Binding Authority also
having been given to the Doctrines and Traditions of Roman Catholic Bishops) The Bible doesn’t teach that. (This admission of admissions by the writer
of this article that the bible in no way says nor implies that Apostolic
doctrines and traditions given by Roman Catholic Popes, or Bishops are equal
with scripture, nor that their words can be used to add to scripture or amend
scripture makes everything that the writer points out hereafter dead in the
water.)
Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. (The
writer now contradicts himself as Roman Catholics in no way shape of form
believe the Word of God and Jesus Christ are the sole foundation of the
Church.) In other words, on this view, every true
doctrine can be found in the Bible, (Period!
No if, and, or buts) if only implicitly
and indirectly by deduction. (Here the writer
utterly contradicts himself again by kicking up mud in the water so as to blind
and deceive us) But no biblical
passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in
isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be
deduced from implicit passages. (Prior to the writers first point we have completely blown
this false and presumptive statement with four passages of scripture – to which
we could bring many more to bear)
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also (We do not feel to
argue further having shown scripture that demonstrates how false the premise of
this Roman Catholic argument that their use of Pope and Bishop doctrines and
traditions is equal to, or can be used to invalidate, reinterpret, or replace Scripture)
"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a
proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was
the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded
later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I
have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’
declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you
have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8
[NIV]).
This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It
had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This
was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God"
or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the
epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For
example:
"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted
it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1
Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul
appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord
with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty
Word
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men
are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics
agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also
is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent
with Scripture.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted
Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul
accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also
appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found
in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt.
2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s
word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In 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.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the
Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such
miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres
opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related
Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. The Apostles Exercised
Authority at the Council of
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking
with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the
Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no
greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been
sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, 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
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral,
Extrabiblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of
Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of
the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all
authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura.
They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are
referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions
Christian Sadducees.
The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream
Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the
orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of
sola scriptura.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not
Believe in Sola Scriptura
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:
a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel,
and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of
goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).
b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in
So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without
much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether
clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar
with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and
cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old
Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative
interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet.
1:20; 3:16).
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the
Protestant "Proof Text"
"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" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding,
authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the
text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we
can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim.
1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:
"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" (Eph. 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. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer
is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even
preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the
Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2
Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
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 and Scripture are both
equally necessary and important for teaching.
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His
Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to
adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and
have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).
"Take note of those who create dissensions and
difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid
them" (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not
infallible doctrine which you have been taught."
10. Sola Scriptura Is a
Circular Position
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as
their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should
believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each
will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if
they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying,
"Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t."
The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to
resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their
decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except
by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a
final appeal that settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating
principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given
the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t
worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant
system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come
up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list.
One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute
(whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where
contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that
differences "don’t matter."
But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are
"minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such
a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only
conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged
stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth.
If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold
the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our
epistle."
(KJV)
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught
in the Bible
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.": The Lord Jesus Christ taught Sola Scriptura
Here is the problem with accepting
Sola Scriptura. You have just opened the door to private interpretation and its
product is over 30.00 diffuse Protestant denominations in the
11. It assumes the infallibility of man’s understanding.
2Thes:2:15:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
Care to name any of these oral traditions?
Do you have an infallible list of them we can see?
Cyril of
Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the
Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy
Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of
argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless
thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this
salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings,
but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend
the whole doctrine of faith….For the articles of the Faith were not composed at
the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all
Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith….This Faith, in a few words,
hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in
the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions
(2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them
on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else
thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the
witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken;
unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man.
Cyril of Jerusalem was a bishop of one of the most
important sees of the church and responsible for instructing catechumens in the
faith. No clearer concept of sola scriptura could be given than that seen in
these statements of Cyril. He equates the teaching he is handing on to these
catechumens with tradition, in which he specifically references 2 Thessalonians
2:15, that he says must be proven by Scripture.
Tradition is simply the teaching of the church that he is passing on orally,
but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures. He states
further that the extent of authority vested in any teacher, be he bishop or
layman, is limited to Scripture. No teaching is to be received that cannot be
proven from Scripture. The church does have authority, as Cyril himself
acknowledges, but it is an authority grounded in fidelity to Scripture and not
principally in succession. According to Cyril, the church is subject to the
final authority of Scripture, and even the church is to be disregarded if it
moves outside that authority in its teaching.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Testimony.html
"The Lord Jesus Christ
taught Sola Scriptura"
Mk:16:15:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature." (KJV)
Mk:3:14:
"And he ordained twelve, that they should
be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach." (KJV)
Lk:9:2:
"And he sent them to preach the
Where did He command to write anything? The only
record of Him writing is when He wrote on the ground and the content of which
is unknown to us:
Jn:8:8:
"And again he stooped down, and wrote on
the ground". (KJV)
How many people could read back then or even now
for that matter?
Ironically, while catholics
will argue that Sola Scriptura leads to heresies and schismatics,
Mormonism is the ultimate anti-sola scripture religion. I have also been told
by a Oneness pentacostal minister that the bible is
not a closed book and that God is still speaking revelations (to the “annointed” ones of course)
There are those who think that
arrogating to himself the right to make pronouncements which are co-equal with
Scripture is somewhat prideful of the Pope.
How is this different than the many thousands of
other preachers of various other denominations who proclaim his interpretation
to be co-equal and true using his claim of Sola Scriptura (which really just
means his belief in what it means..)
Sola Scriptura defense against
this barking madness:
Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word
which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may
keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever
I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add
thereto, nor diminish from it.
Proverbs 30:5-6 - Every word of God [is] pure: he
[is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his
words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 1:1-3 - The Revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants
things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his
angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the
testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and
keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.
Rev. 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that
heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And
if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God
shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and
[from] the things which are written in this book.
Galatians 1:6-12 - I marvel that ye are so soon
removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the
gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man]
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I
seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should
not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren,
that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ.
The references go on and on. Turn from this evil
that you might have this oppressive doctrine lifted from your sight.
"Behold, therefore,
brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which
ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts...."
I'm sure St. Cyril knew the complete verse:
2Thes:2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand
fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by
word, or our epistle". (KJV)
"Do you have an infallible
list of them we can see?"
You can find them all right here and backed
by the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth:
1Tm:3:15:
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God,
the pillar and ground of the truth. (KJV)
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught
in the Bible
YES IT IS!
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
So?
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
It often is in the NT
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Rarely, and so?
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of
So?
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical
Tradition
Whatever!
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
Proof? (A bit more that two references for such a major topic)
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
Nope!
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and
Binding
So?
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
Ecclesiastical Authority is ALSO a Circular Position. Why can’t you folks
SEE that!