SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION Roman Catholic dogma teaches that the doctrine of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is sufficient and the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and morals) is unscriptural. This dogma is unfounded because sola scriptura is the express teaching of Scripture and in particular of the Lord Jesus Christ. The word sufficient is not found in the Word of God in an explicit sense to describe the Scriptures. But neither is the word trinity found in Scripture, yet the doctrine is taught plainly throughout its pages. The same is true with regard to the teaching of sola scriptura. It is as apparent as the teaching of the Trinity. The doctrine is clearly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Christ.
Clearly Scripture was the ultimate authority for Jesus' personal life and ministry. He always appealed to the written Word of God to settle disputes, never to oral tradition. When He refers to the 'Word of God', His reference is always to recorded Scripture. According to His teaching, Scripture was the final judge of all tradition. In fact, Jesus has virtually nothing positive to say about tradition (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:17-19; 15:2-9; 22:29-32). Clearly, if the Son of God teaches that all tradition is to be judged by its conformity to the Scriptures, then tradition is subordinate to Scripture and Scripture is logically the ultimate authority.
Roman Catholic teaching claims that sola scriptura is unhistorical; that is, it contradicts the universal teaching of the early church. The more I have searched for the truth regarding these Roman Catholic beliefs, the more I have been compelled to conclude that the facts will not support this claim. Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church Fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages.
Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) is reflective of the overall view of the Fathers:
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.
Cyril is a vigorous proponent of the concept of sola scriptura. It is a teaching he handed down to the catechumens as an implicit article of the faith. As one reads the writings of the Fathers it becomes clear that Cyril's statements are representative of the church as a whole.
J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.8
Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition, ('See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col. 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition....They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18) and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament.
Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)
I’ll bold some other parts:
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us”
From the Apostles. He learned direct from the Apostles, who had the authority to preach the Faith to the believers. If they did not have this authority then they could not preach the Gospel as Iraneus said that they did.
So it is clear that there is an unbroken authority from the Apostles. You cannot claim that the Scripture in the Vulgate has been corrupted by Constantine, or that the Words are not the same Words, or whatever, that they did not pass down from the Apostles.
“Roman Catholic dogma teaches that the doctrine of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is sufficient and the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and morals) is unscriptural.”
The key word here is alone. What Catholicism teaches is that Scripture AND Tradition are authoritative. In light of this:
“The word sufficient is not found in the Word of God in an explicit sense to describe the Scriptures. But neither is the word trinity found in Scripture, yet the doctrine is taught plainly throughout its pages.”
Clearly, as the Trinity was defined in the Athanasian Creed, this argument is specious. Arguing that the Creed is read plainly in Scripture is not the case, and there were considerable disputes over the nature of the Trinity.
If it is true that sufficiency is not within the words of the bible, then how can one infer that sufficiency is what the bible teaches if one uses the bible alone? Clearly one has been influenced by tradition in inferring that sufficiency is present, much as Trinitarians do when exposed to the Athanasian Creed in reading scripture.
This is not to say that Scripture is superior to tradition or that tradition is superior, but they work together.
“Clearly Scripture was the ultimate authority for Jesus’ personal life and ministry.”
Hmm? That’s a puzzling statement. Christ claimed that he was God himself, which is why he was the ultimate authority. This is why for example, in the temple, that he claims to have seen Abraham. He claimed to be God.
“His reference is always to recorded Scripture.”
What, did he pull out a Septuagint and quote from it? Or did he simply cite it word for word, when his audience would be familiar with it?
Christ does not always use recorded scripture. Not all of those who flocked to see him knew of it. He healed the sick, fed the five thousand, performed miracles. Why would he do all of these things if it were sufficient for him to simply open up a Septuagint?
Even the Septuagint acknowledges that there were prophecies to be fulfilled, and that Christ fulfilled the ones in anticipation of the Messiah. Is it Scripture that says he would come out of Bnjamin Epriath, or Tradition, in that the blessing came from the sole tribe sold into slavery?
“the witness of the prophets concerning each matter”
Eh, doesn’t sound like a book, does it? Sounds an awful lot like Tradition. Which is what Scripture is, a written record of what the prophets and Christ spoke concerning His life and the workings of God with 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.”
At the time? Not really. Why isn’t he a patriarch then? ;)
Other sees that were more important, include Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and even Constantinople.