Here's another article for everyone... :-) ...

Is the Bible truly the final authority in all matters of faith and morals?

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”
-- John 10:27.

The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

“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”
— Revelation 22:18-19

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160).

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.

Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.

Affirmed by Jesus Christ

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

Other sources of authority condemned

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in 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.”

God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

How is Scripture to be accurately interpreted?

The principle of “sola Scriptura” is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).

If you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 “with a broken and a contrite heart”, the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles.

Is Scripture alone adequate, or do we need more?

The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul,

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
— 2 Timothy 3:16-17

For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.

What about the claim that sola Scriptura is not possible?

In an attempt to justify traditions as being of equal or higher authority than Scripture, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel,

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
— John 21:25

Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.

Another attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states,

“…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
— 2 Peter 3:15-16

Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12).

From the earliest days of Christianity, a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. “…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Truth, God’s Word, and our love for Him

The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. “Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: Richard M. Bennett, Berean Beacon Ministries

Copyright © 1999, Eden Communications®, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

THE SOLA SCRIPTURA PRINCIPLE
DOES THE BIBLE TEACH IT?

Sola Scriptura can be defined as the Protestant principle that scripture alone is a sufficient teacher to gain salvation, and it, scripture, is the one ruler or standard by which any doctrine of the church should be judged. If a doctrine cannot be found within the covers of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, then it can be safely rejected, your salvation does not depend on it. Some Catholic apologists will claim that this Sola Scriptura doctrine did not surface until the reformation of the 16th century and Martin Luther. Note the following:

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

So just who authored this affirmation of the principle of the sufficiency and paramount authority of the scriptures known as Sola Scriptura? Was is Martin Luther? Perhaps another Johnny-come-lately disgruntled 16th century reformer? No, the author is from the 5th century, 1100 years prior to the Reformation! The author is none other than St. Augustine, quoted from his online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at Wheaton College.
Here is the same passage with a slightly different translation:

This mediator [Jesus Christ], first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn.

So scripture, according to St. Augustine, is the supreme authority and reveals all truths we should know. That sounds about as good as any Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura. This version bears the Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat, and Imprimi Potest of the Catholic Church and is found in City of God published in 1958 by Image Books, Doubleday, Copyright 1958 by Fathers of the Church, Inc., edited by Vernon J. Bourke, ISBN 0-385-02910-1, page 207.

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life ...
Source: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book II, Chap. 9, online at the University of Pennsylvania.

Could Augustine be more clear about the sufficiency of Scripture in matters of Christian faith? Here are more quotes of Augustine on the authority of scripture (emphasis is mine):

Chapter1, #3 ... I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.
Chapter 3, #24 ... as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.

Source: Letter 82 From Augustine to Jerome.

2. Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not "be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;" but be wise, as himself saith, "unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Rom 12:3) Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me.
Source: St. Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis (On the Good of Widowhood), online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at Wheaton College.

Here is another remarkable testimony from an early church father (emphasis is mine):

1. Introduction:--The purpose of the book a vindication of Christian doctrine, and especially of the Cross, against the scoffing objection of Gentiles. The effects of this doctrine its main vindication.
1. The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable.
Source: Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen.), by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria; and Doctor of the Church; about 318 A.D.

So the Protestant, and even St. Augustine and St. Athanasius, on occasion, proclaim the Bible to be the sole supreme ruler of faith, sufficient to declare the truth.
The Catholic responds that the Catholic Church not only has the authority to preserve, define and interpret scripture, but in addition, has the authority to define and declare what it calls Tradition, which it claims is also the Word of God, and has the same validity as scripture:

Q. Has tradition any connection with the rule of faith?
A. Yes; because it is a part of God's revealed word, properly called the unwritten word as the scripture is called the written word.
Q. What is Tradition? [pg. 87]
A. The doctrines which the Apostles taught by word of mouth, and which have descended through every successive generation even to our times.
Q. Are we obliged to believe what tradition teaches, equally with what is taught by Scripture?
A. Yes; we are obliged to believe the one as firmly as the other; because, what the Apostles preached is as true as what they wrote: it was the same holy Spirit who spoke by their mouths and by their pen.
Source: A Doctrinal Catechism, by Rev. Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876 by T. W. Strong, pages 86, 87.

It is interesting to note that the Roman Catholic church does define and declare Tradition as a prerequisite to a saving faith. Examples of this type of Catholic Tradition would be:

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
Mary's preservation from sin, declared in the Apostolic Constitution Defining the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, by Pope Pius IX, INEFFABILIS DEUS, December 8, 1854:
Under the subtitle The Definition-

... "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is the doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
"Hence, if anyone shall dare-which God forbid!-to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that; furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart."

The Assumption of Mary
Mary's assumption into heaven, declared in the Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII, Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1950, paragraph 44:

... by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
paragraph 45- Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith.

As should be obvious, this distinction between Catholics and Protestants is no small matter, since Catholics claim that salvation depends on your belief in dogma that cannot be found in scripture, the only ruler of faith the Protestants know. What hope then does the Protestant have?
The Catholic will quote the following verse to "prove" their point. I am going to use several different Bibles for comparison, for those who might contest the validity of the King James.
From the New American Bible for Catholics:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

2 The 2:15 With all these things in mind, dear brothers, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the truth that we taught you in our letters and during the time we were with you.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Th 2:14 Therefore, bretheren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

From the 1611 King James:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

From the 1602 Geneva New Testament:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and keep the instructions which ye have been taught, either by word, or by our epistle.

From the 1534 Tyndale New Testament:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore brethren stand fast and keep the ordinances which ye have learned: whether it were by our preaching, or by epistle.

The Catholic appeals to this passage to show that the apostles taught doctrine orally, without benefit of the written New Testament to back them up, so therefore, by their thinking, it is really no different when they teach Catholic Tradition that lacks any scriptural authority (See this page for 2 Th 2:15). But the early pre-New Testament church DID have a written authority to refer to and adhere to, as the following shows:

FIRST CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Acts 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 These Jews were more fair-minded that those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Acts 17:10 That night the Christians hurried Paul and Silas to Beroea, and, as usual, they went to the synagogue to preach.
Acts 17:11 But the people of Beroea were more open minded than those in Thessalonica, and gladly listened to the message. They searched the scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and Silas' statements to see if they were really so.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Acts 17:10 But the bretheren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

From the King James:

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Please note that the word noble derives from the Greek word eugenes, which Strong's defines as follows-

2104. eugenes, yoog-en'-ace; from G2095 and G1096; well born, i.e. (lit.) high in rank, or (fig.) generous:--more noble, nobleman.

This is significant because it clearly is commending the Bereans over and above the Thessalonicans, because while they listened to Paul and Silas with an open mind, they still checked what they were told for accuracy by comparing it with the existing Old Testament scriptures. They did not just accept what they were told by anyone. They used scripture as their only ruler for truth. The principle of Sola Scriptura is very firmly and clearly established in this text.
Catholics however, object that the New Testament did not exist in it's complete written form at the time of this incident, so by their reasoning, it is excluded from this appeal to scriptural authority. Just how, may I ask, does that change the principle established here? Scripture was consulted by the Bereans as the final arbiter of the truth, and this is the exact and precise definition of Sola Scriptura. Had Paul and Silas orally related Traditions (in the Catholic sense of the word) that were not in harmony with, or could not be found in the Old Testament, then the Bereans would have rightly rejected them!
The principle of Sola Scriptura is very clearly taught here and the Catholic should face the fact. Their only recourse is to counter that this situation has somehow changed at some point with the New Testament church and that Catholic Tradition must now also be considered in addition to the written word. Please note that this proof of a change would have to occur after the events in Berea, so this would automatically remove the four Gospels from consideration since they precede Paul's ministry in Berea. In any case, the point is the Bereans were following precisely the principle of Sola Scriptura and they were commended for it. That in itself shows Sola Scriptura is indeed taught and applied in the Bible, despite Catholic claims to the contrary.
It is also worth noting, that when Paul preached in Thessalonica and Berea, he reasoned with the people out of the scriptures. From the King James:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Paul used the written word of God to prove that Jesus was indeed the prophesied Messiah the Jews were waiting for. Scripture was the guide by which anyone could judge for themselves if Jesus of Nazareth met the prophetic requirements completely. Because of the success Paul and Silas were having in converting Jew and Gentile alike to Christianity (vs. 4,12), unbelieving Jews caused an uproar that drove them out of both Thessalonica and Berea (vs. 5-10, 13-14). The unbelieving Jews apparently viewed these conversions as a threat to Judaism as they knew it. But without scripture to use for validating the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Messiah, Paul would not have been able to prove anything.
There is a rather striking parallel here that bears mentioning: that being the similarity of Paul's scripture-based ministry in Thessalonica and Berea, and the Sola Scriptura advocates or Protestant reformers. They also dared to preach directly from the scriptures, an act which has historically stirred the wrath of the Catholic Church, and has generally resulted in persecution down through the centuries, just like Paul stirred the wrath of the Jews in Thessalonica.
So can this principle of scriptural authority be found anywhere else in the bible? Indeed it can.

SECOND CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

2 Tim 3:15 And that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

2 Tim 3:15 You know how, when you were a small child, you were taught the holy Scriptures; and it is these that make you wise to accept God's salvation by trusting in Jesus Christ.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Tim 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

From the King James:

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So according to Paul's second letter to Timothy, scripture is sufficient to make you wise unto salvation. This directly contradicts Catholic claims that Scripture is insufficient, and dogma defined in Tradition is also essential to salvation.
A Roman Catholic Cardinal Denies Bible Sufficiency To Salvation:

We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.

Source: The Faith Of Our Fathers, (The Church and the Bible), by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 111th printing, copyright 1980 by TAN books and Publishers, Inc., ISBN: 0-89555-158-6, page 73.
If Paul is to be believed in 2 Tim 3:15, what need is there then for the unbiblical doctrines and teachings of Catholic Tradition? Who shall we believe, the Apostle Paul, or Cardinal Gibbons?

THIRD CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Isa 8:19 And when they say to you, "Inquire of mediums and fortune-tellers (who chirp and mutter); should not a people inquire of their gods, apply to the dead on behalf of the living!"-
Isa 8:20 then this document will furnish its instruction. That kind of thing they will surely say.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Isa 8:19 So why are you trying to find out the future by consulting witches and mediums? Don't listen to their whisperings and mutterings. Can the living find out the future from the dead? Why not ask your God?
Isa 8:20 "Check these witches' words against the Word of God!" he says if their messages are different than mine, it is because I have not sent them; for they have no light or truth in them.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Isa 8:19 And when they shall say to you: Seek of pythons, and of diviners, who mutter in their enchantments; should not the people seek of their God, for the living of the dead?
Isa 8:20 To the law rather, and to the testimony. And if they speak not according to this word, they shall not have the morning light.

From the King James:

Isa 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The words for law and testimony here mean the Word of God. The word law is torah, and testimony is te'uwdah. Torah may mean either the Decalogue or the Pentateuch, and same can be true of te'uwdah. Isaiah uses both words together previously in chapter 8-
From the King James:

Isa 8:16 Bind up the testimony (te'uwday), seal the law (torah) among my disciples.

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Isa 8:16 The record is to be folded and the sealed instruction kept among my disciples.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Isa 8:16 Write down all these things I am going to do, says the Lord, and seal it up for the future. Entrust it to some godly man to pass on down to godly men of future generations.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Isa 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Clearly Isa 8:16 is speaking of the revealed Word of God written down and contained in the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, which includes the tablets of testimony, the Ten Commandments, but there is also a wider application evident from a number of references to the "law" and the "prophets" (2 Ki 17:13, Neh 9:26, Lam 2:9, Zeph 3:4, Zech 7:12, Matt 5:17, Matt 7:12, Matt 11:13, Matt 22:40, Luke 16:16, John 1:45, Acts 13:15, Acts 24:14, Acts 28:23, Rom 3:21), meaning Scripture as a whole. There is another phrase with identical meaning in the New Testament - "Moses and the prophets", found in Luke 16:29,31, Luke 24:27,44, John 1:45, Acts 26:22, and Acts 28:23.
Note this verse in Revelation that describes those whom Satan is angered with:

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:17 is speaking about the "law and the testimony", and Revelation 19 further defines "testimony" for us:

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Testimony is equated with prophecy, therefore Revelation 12:17 is actually talking about "the law and the prophets", the entire span of Scripture, which the people of God tenaciously adhere to in the end times, to the great anger of Satan.
So now return to Isaiah 8:20-

To the law [Moses] and to the testimony [prophets]: if they speak not according to this word [scripture], it is because there is no light in them.

This then is saying that anyone who does not speak according to the entire written Word of God, the Scriptures, "the law and the prophets", or "Moses and the prophets", if they are not in harmony with it, then there is no light in them. It again proclaims the authority of scripture and only scripture, to discern truth and light.

FOURTH CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book.
John 20:31 But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

John 20:30, 31 Jesus' disciples saw him do many other miracles besides the ones told about in this book, but these are recorded so that you will believe that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing in him you will have life.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 21:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 21:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

From the King James:

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

There is a similar passage in John that is a favorite of Catholics to quote in support of Tradition-
From the New American Bible for Catholics:

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

John 21:25 And I suppose that if all the other events in Jesus' life were written, the whole world could hardly contain the books!

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 21:25 But there are also may other thing which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

From the King James:

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

John said in 20:30 that a sufficient number of the signs or miracles performed by Jesus ARE included in scripture to validate that He was indeed the Messiah, so that you will have a saving faith. Again, scripture includes whatever is necessary to bring you to a saving faith. Nothing that is necessary for salvation is left out. John 21:25 in no way changes that, nor can it be cited for proof of unwritten articles of faith (Tradition) required for salvation. It says essentially that not every deed or action of Jesus is recorded, (Just as John had stated earlier) but he again does not even hint at unrecorded doctrines.

FIFTH CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Prov 30:6 Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God proves true. He defends all who come to him for protection.
Prov 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him.
Prov 30:6 Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:

From the King James:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Prov 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

There is a clear warning here to those who would try and amend the word of God through additions. Isn't this exactly what the ex-cathedra Roman Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary are?
So by what standard do you know what the word of God is? What authority should be consulted to assure yourself that you are not adding to His word? Just exactly what is the word of God?

SIXTH CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

John 10:35 If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, scripture cannot be set aside,

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scriptures cannot be broken;

From the King James:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

In this verse Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6. (In context, the word for "gods" actually means judges.) Here the word of God and scripture are linked as one and the same.

SEVENTH CITATION

From the King James:

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Mat 7:24 Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock.
Mat 7:25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.

From the 1602 Geneva New Testament:

Mat 7:24 Whosoever then heareth of me these words, and doeth the same, I will liken him to a wise man, which hath builded his house on a rock.
Mat 7:25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not; for it was grounded upon a rock.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Mat 7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock.
Mat 7:25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

So, where can we turn to study and hear the words of Jesus, that we might do them and build our house on His solid rock foundation? Surely this truth is indeed found in scripture, the word of God.

EIGHTH CITATION

From the King James:

2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Tim 2:15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Clearly Paul is saying here to study the scriptures, which he defines as the word of truth. But then, what Catholic would deny that scripture is the word of God? None of course... but they would reply that the written word is not the sole word of God. Catholic Tradition they would say, as declared by the church, has equal authority, as shown by the new Vatican Catechism-
... two distinct modes of transmission
#81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.
#82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

But just where does scripture make this declaration?

NINTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.
John 5:40 And you will not come to me that you may have life.
John 5:46 For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

From the King James:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Here Jesus tells the Jews to study and search the scriptures, because they know that the way to eternal life can indeed be found there. That way to eternal life is revealed in scripture as Jesus Christ, the Messiah that the Jews had longed for. But the Jews did not even believe what Moses had written, and as a result repeatedly fell into apostasy. Jesus makes the point that if the Jews will not believe and obey what Moses had written in scripture, then how could they possibly believe the words spoken directly to them by the Christ that the scriptures reveal? Had the Jews properly understood and believed the scriptures, they would have recognized Jesus for who He was, the very Son of God.
So this passage teaches that the written word of God is sufficient to reveal the way to eternal life, which is none other than Jesus Christ. It is as true today as it was the day it was written.

TENTH CITATION

From the King James:

Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Rom 16:25 Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret from eternity,
Rom 16:26 (Which now is made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the precept of the eternal God, for the obedience of faith,) known among all nations;

What is to be made known among all nations? The gospel, the mystery of God.
How is it revealed (made manifest)? By the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God.

ELEVENTH CITATION

Apollos also, like Paul, taught the Gospel from the scriptures, not from Tradition:
From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Acts 18:24 Now a certain Jew, named Apollo, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus, one mighty in the scriptures.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, spoke, and taught diligently the things that are of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 18:26 This man therefore began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Priscilla and Aquila had heard, they took him to them, and expounded to him the way of the Lord more diligently.
Acts 18:27 And whereas he was desirous to go to Achaia, the brethren exhorting, wrote to the disciples to receive him. Who, when he was come, helped them much who had believed.
Acts 18:28 For with much vigour he convinced the Jews openly, shewing by the scriptures, that Jesus is the Christ.

From the King James:

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Acts 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

TWELFTH CITATION

From the King James:

1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

1 Cor 4:6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.

From the 1602 Geneva Bible's New Testament:

1 Cor 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied unto mine own self and Apollos, for your sakes, that ye might learn by us, that no man presume above that which is written, that one swell not against another for any mans cause.

From the 1534 Tyndale New Testament:

1 Cor 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have described in mine own person and Apollos, for your sakes, that ye might learn by us, that no man count of himself beyond that which is above written: that one swell not against another for any mans cause.

From the Amplified Bible:

1 Cor 4:6 Now I have applied all this [about parties and factions] to myself and Apollos for your sakes, bretheren, so that from what I have said of us [as illustrations] you may learn [to think of men in accordance with Scripture and] not to go beyond that which is written; that none of you may be puffed up and inflated with pride and boast in favor of one [minister and teacher] against another.

Paul in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians is speaking against the factions that had developed in the Corinthian church. These factions were formed around various teachers, like Paul himself, Apollos and Peter (1 Cor 1:12, 3:4). Each faction exalted itself in pride because of who their favorite teacher was. Paul using himself as an example asks - "was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:13). Paul is making the point here that it is the message of "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" that matters (1 Cor 2:2), but not who it was that brought you that message. Paul himself taught the basics, or "milk" of the Gospel (1 Cor 3:2), while Apollos built on what Paul had taught, at a higher level of understanding (1 Cor 3:6). In both cases though, it was God who gave understanding (1 Cor 3:7), not Paul or Apollos. So Paul says (1 Cor 3:21-22) "let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas (Peter) ... ." The point he is making is that scripture does not teach one to be a disciple of Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, but rather a disciple of Jesus Christ, whom all the prophets and apostles preached about.
So when Paul says "not to go beyond that which is written," he makes quite clear that the written scriptures are the limiting factor. This is Sola Scriptura in verity. Paul is teaching unity in the truths of the Gospel message as found in scripture, which teaches Jesus Christ as the Saviour and foundation (1 Cor 3:11), but he is criticizing divisive factions in the church based on individual disciples. The warning is not to build teachings, doctrines, or dogma that go beyond the teaching of scriptures and exalt anyone other than Christ. The church that exalts one disciple over another, and so divides the body of Christ, is described by Paul as being carnal rather than spiritual (1 Cor 3:4). Does this not then describe a church that calls Peter the preeminent apostle, and presumes to trace itself all the way back to Peter via the Tradition of apostolic succession? This is precisely what Paul is warning against.

THIRTEENTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to witness this day, that I am clear from the blood of all men;
Acts 20:27 For I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not, with tears to admonish every one of you night and day.

From the King James:

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

FOURTEENTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him.

From the King James:

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

So here, up to this point, are no less than fourteen different passages found in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that collectively establish the principle of Sola Scriptura, the authority of scripture alone to discern truth and instruct one in a saving faith in Jesus Christ. What then of Catholic Tradition? What of the dogmas of the apostolic succession, the immaculate conception of Mary, her assumption into heaven, her role as mediatrix of God's grace and the many other such unbiblical Catholic Traditions? What bearing do they really have on salvation?

FIFTEENTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Gal 1:6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
Gal 1:7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

From the King James:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 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.
Gal 1:9 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.

The gospel message as preached by Paul, and as recorded faithfully in the scriptures, is pure and remains sufficient to salvation. No doctrine or Tradition needs to be added to what Paul taught the early Christians. In fact, Paul condemns anyone who would teach a gospel other that what he had presented, which was the whole counsel of God..
Conclusion
Clearly Sola Scriptura stands as biblically taught truth. The decrees and pronouncements called "Tradition" by the Roman Catholic Church, which cannot be found in scripture, are therefore rightly defined as that "other gospel" that Paul spoke of.
So let those who teach that other gospel take solemn note of Paul's warning.

Sola Scriptura

Tradition

The above old woodcut illustrates the differences in teaching.
The Protestants on the left, are deep in Bible study during the sermon.
Catholics on the right, with their rosary beads and no Bibles, are reciting their "Hail Marys".

The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

Is It Really Biblical?
by Tony Warren

What is Sola Scriptura? Actually, it is a Latin phrase that was coined by the Reformation Church during the 1500's. It means "scripture solely" or "scripture alone." By these words the faithful Christians of this era took a stand for the Biblical principle that the Bible was God's wholly inspired word, and as such was the "sole infallible" rule of faith and practice for the Church. Thus by definition, the word of God must be the ultimate or supreme authority of man, and not (as some had supposed) the Roman Catholic Church, it's pope, and magisterium. Since the position of the Roman Church was mutually exclusive to that of those faithful Christians who protested it (and thus were labeled, Protestants), both obviously could not be correct. If the faithful Christian Church was going to stand on God's word as the ultimate authority, then there would have to be a "reforming" of the Church. There had to be a restoration of the laws of God, which the Church at the time had fallen away from. This Reformation is just as a law breaker or criminal might sees the error of his ways and turn to reform himself and obey the laws that were always there, but that he had neglected. In like manner, these faithful Christians understood that the Church had erred, and thus had to return to its former obedience and reliance upon God's law. A good analogy for this restoration is found in the Old Testament when Hilkiah the Priest brought the law of God (that had been previously disregarded) to King Josiah. Upon reading God's law that had been neglected by the people, Josiah's eyes were opened and he understood this principle of having to reform or restore the congregation to previous obedience.

2nd Kings 22:10-13

"And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying,
Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

Likewise, these conscientious Reformers read God's law and understood that their Church leaders had not harkened unto the words of the Book. Thus, for all intents and purposes, October 31, 1517 began the Reformation as a German Monk by the name of Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Roman Catholic Church door in Wittenberg, Germany. For the faithful would no longer sit back and watch the Church forsake the laws of God's Holy Book, in favor of Church traditions. They felt they had to return to the Biblical precepts in not leaning unto their own understanding, nor upon the understanding of their Church leaders. They would lean upon the scriptures alone (The doctrine of Sola Scriptura) as the ultimate authority that cannot be overruled.

Actually, calling it the doctrine of Sola Scriptura might be construed as a bit of a misnomer in one sense. Because it is not a doctrine that teaches we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the authority of the word of God. In other words, the authority of the word of God is not dependent upon the declarations of the Church, as had been taught. Thus the phrase "Sola scriptura" implies several things. First, that the scriptures are a direct revelation from God, and as such are God's Holy infallible authoritative words. It is delineates that the completed Holy Canon contains all that is necessary for Christian faith and practice today. And not only that the scriptures are sufficient, but that they are also the ultimate and final court of appeal on all doctrinal matters. Because however good and faithful Church leaders may be in giving guidance, all the Ministers, Pastors, Leaders, Teachers, Popes, and Councils, are still fallible flesh. The only infallible "source" for truth is God. And beside God Himself, only His Holy words (the Scriptures alone) are infallible, and shall be preserved forever for man.

Psalms 12:6-7

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Man doesn't get the credit for preservation of the infallible pure word of God, it is the Lord who has made sure that we have the New Testament. Just as He had made sure that Israel had the Old Testament scriptures. The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura ultimately pointed to the most basic concern of the faithful Church of that day, which was expressed in their cry of Soli Deo Gloria, or, "to God alone be the Glory." This expresses true humility in the Christian perspective that God should receive all the Glory, and that this is accomplished by man keeping God's word alone as his only supreme and infallible authority. The only infallible head of the Church is Christ, not fallible man. And so the authority of the Church must likewise be the infallible words out of His mouth, not words out of the mouths of men. No matter how faithful men might appear, their words are still mere words of men, and thus subordinate to God's word. What is called the doctrine of Sola Scriptura both was, and is, necessary and essential to true Christianity. For this is the difference between God's divinely inspired traditions and ordinances, and man made traditions and ordinances.

What some call the oral traditions of the Church are subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation. There is absolutely no guarantee given by God or by the scriptures (His infallible word) that such an oral tradition would be either preserved, or needed. Indeed, 2nd Timothy chapter 3 strongly implies such was not needed.

2nd Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness;
that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."

The Old Testament scriptures thoroughly furnished man of that day unto all good works, and Christ continually referenced it to prove truths to Old Testament Israel. Jesus and others read and quoted scripture, never any oral traditions, except to condemn them. That's not an insignificant fact or something that is not pertinent. Likewise, when Satan himself tested Jesus, the Lord gave us our example of reproof by His steadfast reference to "the authority of scripture" to prove Satan's understanding, tempting or declarations were flawed.

Matthew 4:3-4

"And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

What proceeds out of the mouth of God is His Holy infallible word, and this was written in the scriptures as man's authority. These words are as the bread or sustenance of life, that man must live by. Jesus didn't reference oral traditions, but what was divinely inspired and written. Because no matter how faithful Christians may appear, they are mere men and their word must be subordinate to God's word. Consider that Christ could have answered Satan in any way that He wanted, for He is Perfect God, and an original perfect answer could have been spoken at any moment. But instead, Christ pointed to God's word that was already written in the scriptures as His reply to the adversary. i.e., that was the perfect authority where the answer would come from. This yielding to what was written in the scriptures is an example and lesson for all faithful Christians about what authority we should defer to in coming to any Biblical truth. And Christ answered this way not only in debunking un-biblical assertions, but also when He was presented with scripture that was taken out of context. When this occurred, Christ again defers to additional scripture, that would "qualify" or shed more light on the scripture in question. For example:

Matthew 4:5-11

Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple,
and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

In other words, Jesus replies to scripture taken out of context, with an additional scripture which "qualifies" and clarifies the scripture, not denies it. For no scripture contradicts another scripture. In doing this, Christ is demonstrating to us how we are to exegete scripture. i.e., he didn't deny the the first scripture the Devil submitted. Yes, it was true God's messengers will watch over us. But the additional scripture Christ submitted clarified how that didn't mean that we could test or tempt the Lord God. This is a perfect example of God illustrating the ultimate authority of scripture, even in the face of those who present other scriptures taken out of context. The perfect answer by Christ to combat erroneous understanding of scripture, was for Him to quote "additional Scripture" that shed more light on its true meaning. Thus we learn that the scripture is still the ultimate authoritative judgment over whatever other scriptures that anyone might misuse or misapply. Even as Christ Himself deferred to scripture, as our example.

Matthew 4:8

"Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

Again, Jesus answers those proving or testing Him with infallible scripture to counter the foolish ideas and visions of vain glory. He says, "It is Written!" In other words, Jesus again defers to the authority of God's Holy word that declared we bow down to serve God alone. Christ never says, go ask the Priests, or go to your congregational leaders, or that your oral tradition is the answer. No, Christ references the true and supreme authority declaring, "it is written!" This is a representative sample or model of the posture that we are to take in order to test the spirits to see if they are of God or of antichrist. We compare their words to "what is written," countering their Church traditions with the authority of what God has inspired written. The same can be said about any debate of any doctrine of the Church. The correct principle in faithful Hermeneutics is to always defer to a sound and ordered exegesis of scripture, and not to consensus, tradition, leaders, or the ecclesiastical body. This is precisely as Jesus demonstrated in His debates with the religious leaders of His day. He was God Himself, and yet He appealed to the authority of scripture that we might be enlightened.

Matthew 21:42

"Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!"

They were to understand that it was written in the scriptures, the supreme authority that furnished them unto all good works. Therefore, they should have searched God's words that they would have known of the coming Christ. Likewise, when the New Testament was added, it Biblically follows this same principle of thoroughly furnishing us unto all Good works. The same principle would continue in the final Testament of God's Holy word. Once completed, the entire New Testament scriptures (like the Old Testament was) is the guidebook of truth for the Church. It is now a "completed work," not a work in progress. It is not an incomplete book that needs adjusting. We can't add to it or take away from it by oral tradition, by revelation, or divine inspiration. The bible (N.T. and O.T.) is now one cohesive whole that is complete and thoroughly furnishing the entire body. And this is the truth that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura so humbly instructs the Church in. That God's Bible is complete, and thus is not subject to addition or subtraction by man through any utterings allegedly from God. Until Christ's return on the clouds of glory, the Bible alone is God's Holy infallible word alone.

Although there are some Roman Catholic Church apologists that declare this doctrine was not even heard of until "The Reformation" of the 16th century, this is an untenable charge. It is an inaccurate and self-serving claim that can be proven false quite easily (even apart from scripture). Read this quote from the 5th century, eleven hundred years before the Reformation and see if you can surmise who wrote it:

This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

Do you know who authored this affirmation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Can you tell who wrote this quote declaring scripture the paramount authority to which the Church must yield? The author is Augustine of Hippo. It's a quote taken directly from his book "City of God" (book 11, Chapter 3). This unambiguous declaration by Augustine is about as definitive a statement for Sola Scriptura as any Protestant declaration you're going to read. So this argument that the reformers invented this doctrine is proven false both by history, and the Bible. The word of God both is now, and has always been the supreme authority of the Church. As indeed we saw demonstrated even in the days of the Priest Hilkiah when he caused God's people to be refreshed by the holy scriptures. Yes, the phrase Sola Scriptura is a relatively modern Latin term, but obviously that doesn't mean that what it delineates was not Church doctrine from the beginning. It is clear that Christ Himself, the Apostles, and the early Church, all deferred to authority of scripture. Paul taught from the scriptures continually as he tried to get his kinsmen to accept authority of scripture rather than their congregational leaders (e.g., The Bereans -Acts 17:11).

Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?

Can the scriptures contradict what some allege is "oral apostolic tradition," and yet that tradition still be of God? Of course the answer is a resounding, no! Because God is not the author of disorder or confusion of doctrine in His Church.

1st Corinthians 14:33

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

The undeniable fact is, two allegedly infallible God-breathed sources cannot contradict each other on doctrine. Else, at least one of them is not infallible. This is a conclusion that is unassailable. Yet God's word and Roman Catholic Church traditions constantly contradict each other. This should alert any "faithful" student of scripture that one is not infallible, and it sure isn't the divinely inspired word of God. The following is just a few of the myriad of examples:

The word of God teaches that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4,20), and that all sin is purged as we were purified in Christ's death on the cross. Roman Catholic traditions teach that sin can be purged later, in a place called Purgatory (place of purifying). This is Heresy!
The word of God teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1) but Roman tradition declares them different offices.
The word of God teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), while Roman Catholic tradition dares correct this, claiming that the Priest actually sacrifices the body of Christ on the altar at mass.
The word of God teaches that we should not use vain repetitions in prayers (Matthew 6:7) thinking that we will be heard for our much speaking, while Roman Catholic traditions teach that repeating Hail Mary in prayer is penitence "as if" God indeed will hear us for our much repetition.
The word of God teaches that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), while Roman Catholic tradition believes this untrue, because Mary was also sinless. This is also Heresy!
The word of God teaches that all Christians are Saints and Priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but Roman Catholic tradition has made Saints and Priests special cases or offices within the Christian community, dealt out by their Church leadership.
The word of God teaches that we are not to bow down to graven images (Exodus 20:4-5) such as statues, but Roman Catholic tradition makes no such claim, nor rebukes Christians for this practice.
The word of God teaches that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but Roman Catholic tradition declares that Mary is co-mediator with Christ. This also is heresy!
The word of God teaches that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church rests, the foundation stone, and the Head of the Church (Luke 6:48, 1st Peter 2:7-8, Matthew 16:18), But Roman Catholic tradition claims that the foundation Rock of the Church is Pope Peter (Psalms 18:31), and that the pontiff is the head of the Church, an aberration which in effect makes God's Church, a two-headed Church, with multiple authorities and starting foundation.
The word of God teaches that all Christians can and should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but Roman Catholic tradition says that Christians cannot and should not be assured that they have eternal life.

Many faithful Christians of the Reformation could see the great chasm that had been created between Church traditions and the word of God, and understood that the words that our Saviour Jesus Christ spoke to the Pharisees, applied equally to congregation of their day:

"..Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions!" -Matthew 15:6

Comparing the examples of man-made traditions against God's word, we see that, sadly, this practice of unrighteousness continues even today. The Church simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other, while claiming that both are the infallible teachings of God. It is abject instability, inconsistency and confusion. Any oral tradition passed down in the church is subject to the written word of God. Even as it was subject to what was written for the Scribes and Pharisees. To deny this is "tortuous" of scripture and of authority.

Matthew 15:2-3

"Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"

Clearly, congregational traditions must be in subjection to the law of God, and not the other way around. Moreover, if there was an ongoing oral tradition (which there is not), of necessity it still would require a standard point of reference to check itself against. A reference such as God speaking from the smoke on the Mountain, or talking out of a Burning Bush, or His unadulterated divinely inspired written word, the scriptures. Surely true Christians (under God's direction), can readily realize the danger of oral tradition of Churches becoming corrupted by fallible men (as had been the case with the Pharisees, and indeed throughout Biblical history), and so faithfulness requires an infallible scriptural check. That's why Christ always said, "it is written" or referenced the writings of the law and prophets. It is so that we will understand what the law book is, what the authority is, and where we should go to try the spirits. We search the scriptures.

Proverbs 8:32-34

"Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors."

We hear instruction through spiritual ears discerning the scriptures that we are searching. The Reformation Christians led by the Spirit of God understood the need for a supreme "final" authoritative checkpoint to which every person must be subject. Thus the importance of maintaining God's authoritative word became of very great concern to them, even as it had previously with the Apostles, and even the Scribes maintaining the Old Testament books. If we were to totally ignore the facts of history, that there was no Roman Church nor Pope making the claims they now do during the first three or four centuries (as the foremost Church historians overwhelmingly attest), then we might fathom this. That is to say, provided we ignore the witness of scripture. And even if we did assume there was such a Church headed by an infallible pope (as the Roman Church does), this would not even begin to explain the importance believers placed on maintaining the texts of the New Testament. For indeed there would have been no need to maintain them at all. One would only need to consult the infallible Pope, who, being under God's guidance would know the truth more certainly and accurately than the Apostle's written word. In 2nd Peter 1:19, where Peter said, "we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it," that would be worthless. How can we make the witness of the Apostles of non-effect, when it is the divinely inspired word of God itself?

2nd Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

All men are liars (Psalms 116:11), but God is true. Thus we do realize that 2nd Peter 1:19 is God's unadulterated truth. We do realize that oral doctrines and oral traditions are indeed subject to change or degeneration over time and therefore require a standard point of God breathed reference that it can be checked against. all scripture is given by inspiration of God and has supplied, and continues to supply this check. Through the Spirit it is the only way we can try (test) the spirits to know whether they be of God or not (1st John 4:1). How would we do this without the authority of scripture? How would the Old Testament Priest Hilkiah have brought this written truth to the King who had forsaken it? Tradition that proclaims what is non-scriptural cannot have absolute authority over scripture. It may have the authority of age, antiquity, or large consent, but it does not have ultimate compulsion or necessity. So, in conclusion, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any church, any tradition, any pope or minister, is equal to God's written word. Therefore, scripture is the final authority by which we try the spirits.

Can Tradition be on a par with God's word?

Since the Bible "is" the word of God (as even Roman Catholics whole heartily agree), then it's only rational, Biblical, and logical to profess that no "other" authority can either contradict it, be on a par with it, or be above it. i.e., there is no authority higher than God's word (what word supersedes God's?) and no word that is on a par with it (what word is as good as God's?). Therefore, logically, Biblically, and rationally speaking, in order for someone's word to be on a par with God's word, the one speaking it would have to either be God, or at the very least be equal to God. The only other alternatives are to be receiving revelations direct from God or to be "quoting" God, testifying or witnessing faithfully to it. Neither the Pope, a Priest, nor anyone else is equal to God that their words are on a par with His words. Nor is God giving new revelation to anyone today from the smoke on the mountain or out of a Burning Bush. The Bible is complete, not incomplete that it needs new oral additions. It needs no further traditions added, and condemns those who dare to do so.

Revelation 22:18-19

"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."

If anyone adds words to the book of Revelation, he has added words to the Bible, and if anyone takes away from the revelation of God, he has taken away from the Bible. There is really no way to get around it because we do not have an incomplete book in the Bible. And anyone who adds to Revelation, has added to the bible, and will come under condemnation of God. This of course is the tangled web in which the Roman Catholic Church finds itself by placing new tradition on a par with God's word. For unless something "is" God's word, then it cannot be equal to God's word. And simply declaring that God gave it is not sufficient for anyone to claim that his or her tradition is the word. Just as it wouldn't be for the vain traditions that the Pharisees held when Jesus condemned it saying, their traditions had made the word of God of non-effect. Their traditions, like Roman Catholic traditions, were created in sophistry after the principles of the world, not after the precepts of the word.

Colossians 2:8

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Traditions of men patterned after the imaginations of self-justification, cannot be laid at the feet of God or put in His mouth as divine precepts. It is true that God breathed His word through the apostles that they spoke what God had divinely inspired them to speak. But unless God is continuing to write his book (the Bible) through the Roman Church, then that giving of the law through those who penned scripture has ended. And if it has not ended, then the Pope must rip out the page of Revelation where God says don not add to the book of this Revelation and throw it away. He should then proclaim the Bible incomplete, a work in progress, and write down every infallible word that he (supposedly) receives of God, and write it on the pages of the Bible. And he would be uncondemned for it, as it is the word direct from God "if" what Catholicism claims is true. If tradition were on the same level with God's word, then it would be God's word. In fact, afterward there would be no oral tradition, because it would join the written word of God "as" the word of God. God's word is something He wants us to hear and to keep. That is why we have the written word and why Christ says, "it is written." But again, this is the tangled web that is woven by the un-biblical dogma of the old Roman Church.

Hebrews 10:7

"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."

Christ is discerned in the volume of the book. The Old Testament book, and the new Testament book is where the revelation of God will be found. There is no additional Roman Catholic Book of traditions. The word of God is completed.

More than that, tradition can become corrupt in the congregation of God (even as it certainly had with the Pharisees in Jesus' day -mark 7:9, and in King Josiah's day). And so even common sense dictates that it simply cannot and must not be trusted as the ultimate authority as the Word of God is. The words and doctrines of leaders of God's congregation are often unjustifiable by scripture, and even contradictory to it. And so we shouldn't be surprised that scripture bears out the truth that any tradition or ordinance must be subordinate to the word. Jesus made it quite clear that we simply cannot hold to any traditions which are not subordinate to scripture, and that teaching such doctrines are contrary to the gospel of Christ. Consider wisely:

Mark 7:6-8

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
howbeit in vain they do worship Me, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men,
for laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such like things you do."

This was no slap on the wrist, it was the worst of judgment upon them that was meted out for setting aside the word of God in order that they could keep their congregational traditions. This is the exact same error of the Roman Catholic Church today. The error of the religious leaders was that they had put tradition on a par with the written word of God. In fact, they had made it superior to scripture, as the commandments of God were interpreted true or not "by their tradition," which makes scripture subject to it instead of vice versa. Christ rebuked them in the strongest of terms illustrating that the tradition of their congregation was subject to the scriptures, not scripture to their tradition. Any argument that denies this (considering scriptures such as this one), is indefensible. Jesus would not have condemned them for their traditions if the tradition of God's chosen people were to be on a par with the holy written word. It made no biblical sense then, and it makes no biblical sense now.

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!"

This is a solemn declaration that every word of God is tried and pure and that we are not to add to His words, because that would make us liars. This law of God is an enduring restriction on God's revelation. Holy men of old who spoke as they were inspired of God, wrote scripture. Those scriptures are now finished or complete. This is not an ongoing book. As God's people, we have been commissioned and given the authority to go forth and witness of God's word. There are no other supreme authorities, or institutions, or objects, that are so circumscribed. Note that in Ecclesiastes, after reflecting on the vanity of life, the Preacher summarizes our basic duty as to, "fear God and keep His commandments -Ecclesates 12:13." Keep means to guard from loss, don't take away from it, don't add to it, hold on to it faithfully. The Church cannot add to God's word by claiming that traditions are additionally, God's word. Those who truly love God keep His word alone as the authority. i.e., the doctrine of Sola Scriptura!

Understanding this, we conclude that those who reject the scripture today as the only "infallible" rule of faith and practice for the Church, ultimately are subordinating the word of God to the traditions of men. They do so by making congregational tradition and leadership the final interpreter of God's word. It sets the words of men in the Church (no matter how faithful they may be) on a par with God's word, and this is a very dangerous and un-biblical thing to do. Every individual is ultimately responsible for what he believes, not the Church, not his Priest, and not his leader. Each man is judged for his own sin, and we all are responsible to study the Bible, rather than leave that for others to do for us. And indeed Jesus Himself said:

John 12:48

"He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the Last day!"

No one practicing the Roman Catholic Church doctrine of Church authority, will righteously be able to stand before God at the judgment and plead, "..the Pope and the Magisterium told me to believe in this, or my Priest told me that I should believe this way." There are no such "excuses" that will free man from his own responsibility. We are to listen to God's word rather than the words of mere men, and neglecting this, we will be judged for it. We therefore should carefully consider which authority is truly "infallible," and which authority we should follow. Is it God's word (a given), or is it our church tradition?

John 10;27

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."

Christ's title is the "Word of God" because He is God's faithful promise or oath, made flesh, that it be fulfilled in Him. And what is the voice of Christ? Is it Church leadership, a Priest, the Magisterium or Ecclesiastical order? No, it is the word of God delivered unto man. Certainly this is the crux of the matter. Will we receive the truth that God's word alone should be the final authority in matters of faith, practice, and the doctrine of the Church? Not that it is the only authority, but the final, supreme and ultimate Authority to which all others must surrender to. Being Christ's disciple requires this total surrender and submission to God.

Luke 14:32-33

"Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

Here Christ is explaining that the cost of discipleship is unconditional submission to the will of God, and that is only revealed by the word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ, replete with allegories, parables and examples, taught us this basic principle. As when the Pharisees argued with Jesus the points of the law of God concerning the Sabbath. Did Jesus petition tradition to speak concerning this issue? Did He lean unto ecumenical counsels for direction? Did He say that they should go check with the High Priest? No, He deferred to scripture and showed that we are to lean upon the written word of God.

Matthew 12:3-5

"but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?"

Again, when they questioned him about the law of God concerning divorce..

Matthew 19:4-5

"And He answered and said unto them, have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
and said, for this reason shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."

Or when the Sadducees questioned Him concerning doctrines of the resurrection. Did Jesus appeal to the leaders of God's congregation, to history, or to tradition? Not at all, He once again appeals to the written word of God.

Matthew 22:31-32

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying,
I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living."

Note Christ says "spoken to you by God," and "read from the scriptures." There can be no doubt that the scriptures are the divine word of God that Christ is appealing to argue doctrine. And likewise when the man came to Jesus and asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Did Jesus say, talk to the Church fathers, get Church absolution, or to follow the congregational traditions? No, He once again appealed to him to look to the scriptures.

Luke 10:26

"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

The written word of God is where Jesus 'directed' them to find the answers to these questions. Their proofs would be found in the divinely inspired scriptures. When the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection and tried to trap Jesus, Christ could have given them a legitimate and awe inspiring "NEW" answer right then and there without any appeal to written scripture. It is not curious that He did not, but expected because it is typical for Christ to demonstrate that we must appeal to scripture. Thus He tells them:

Matthew 22:29

"..Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"

Once again, Jesus rejects the ecclesiastical tradition of the Sadducees in favor of the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" as the authority. He says that they were in error because they didn't really know the scriptures. In other words, the scriptures are what they should have known, which would have guided them into the truth. But they didn't know them, and that is why they were in error. It is not in the Congregational leaders and their traditions that man will find truth, it is where Jesus appeals to it. And that is in God's holy word of truth. And it, like Him, cannot lie.

Matthew 26:24

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".

Jesus is God, the Perfect teacher! And yet He is appealing Sola Scriptura to show everyone that He must do what is written. Even when the Jewish people sought to Kill Him (John 5:18) thinking that they were God's Chosen People and had Eternal life, Jesus once again directed them to the real authority, wherein they would find the truth of the matter.

John 5:39

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."

Why would Jesus be sending them to a non-authoritative source for truth? Or why would He be sending them to a lessor authority than God's Priests? It is self evident that He would not do that. He sent them to the ultimate authority. He directed them to scriptures for the very same reason that the Bereans (acts 17:11) appealed to scripture when the Apostle Paul told them of doctrines they were unsure of. Because it, not the leaders or their tradition, was the ultimate authority of God's people. He is saying search the inspired, divine, infallible word of God for truth. Thus in the cry of "Sola Scriptura," the faithful of the Protestant Reformation were illustrating this ancient wisdom that has been evident throughout the teachings of Jesus.

Roman Catholic Objections

Most Roman Catholics object to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from two distinct positions. They argue that:

(#1) The New Testament references to oral "tradition" (II Thess. 2:15; II Tim. 2:2; II Cor. 11:2) illustrate the unbiblical nature of this teaching, and that
(#2) The Scripture themselves nowhere teach the doctrine.

Isn't it "ironic" that in both cases they "appeal to scripture" as the final proof or authority that their traditions are correct? So we see that when it suits their purpose, they can always appeal to scripture (as in the keys of the kingdom, Peter the Rock, translations of words describing Mary's other Children, etc.) as the final say in matters. But when it doesn't suit their purpose, curiously, scripture isn't really the final authority on doctrine.

Nevertheless, the first argument is based upon a simplistic and naive understanding of Sola Scriptura in that it presupposes the doctrine means there was never any oral tradition or teaching done. This of course would be ludicrous, as much of the New Testament was oral tradition or teaching of God before it was written down (see the Study on 'Traditions of men vs. Traditions of God'). The word traditions (as used in the Bible) is the Greek word [paradosis] meaning transmission, and by implication, an ordinance. I have yet to find anyone except Catholics themselves who believes that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means what they purport it does. So this argument is the proverbial "Straw Man" argument. Things revealed to Peter, and which he was inspired of God to say (oral tradition or ordinances) became the written word of God as they were penned. The Old Testament was created the very same way. By Prophets being given some type revelation from God, and someone penning it. But the Bible is complete today. i.e., there is no third Newest Testament book of Pope John, or Pope this or that, as there is a book of Peter, or John, or Jude, etc. Because the word of God is finished, complete, and not to be added to.

In so far as the second argument is concerned, as I've been demonstrating throughout this document, from the beginning of it to the end of it, scripture clearly teaches what has been labeled "Sola Scriptura." But it requires the Holy Spirit of God to discern this fundamental truth, just as any doctrine of scripture does. To simply say scripture doesn't teach it, despite the mountain of scriptures supporting it, is to stick ones head in the proverbial sand. With Jesus, proving that what He says is true is directing us to the scriptures, it would seem that the Roman Church and Pope would likewise direct to the scriptures. Instead, they claim the Pope has an infallible authority "over" the scripture itself, alleging that only they can interpret it. What arrogance and vanity is this?

Psalms 131:1

"LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me."

It would seem to me that given the abundance of examples and illustrations of God, the onus is on the Roman Catholic Church to disprove the sufficiency of scripture, rather than on the Church to prove it's insufficiency. Because both sides agree scripture "is" the word of God, no other authority is above God, and the Bible is complete. How then is it insufficient? Indeed, they have constructed a mystery that is a riddle inside an enigma. How is no other authority above God's, while God's word is made subject to Church teachings? It makes no sense. How is scripture not sufficient, and yet God declares that there cannot be added anything else to it?

In order to disprove sufficiency of scripture, one would need to show us exactly where oral tradition differs from Scripture. If it doesn't differ, then what is the need of oral tradition, and why does God say scripture thoroughly furnished them unto all good works? And If oral tradition is not found taught in the scriptures (because it presumably differs from), one must then prove that the 'oral revelation' which was not found in scripture, is apostolic and of divine origin. Despite claims of such proof by some, no such proof exists. Therefore, they cannot prove any oral tradition handed down through tradition of a church, is of God. While scripture proves itself, interprets itself, and defines itself. All man has to do is diligently compare it with itself, and with the witness of Christ. It is through the word, not men, that faith and the knowledge of truth comes.

1st John 2:27

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

Christians depending entirely upon the men in the Church to teach them are courting disaster. It is the holy Spirit that is the teacher, and He teaches through God's word. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). The fact is, the reason that the early Churches of the second century were so diligent in collecting and preserving the New Testament writings of Paul, John, Peter, and others in the first place, was to guard against "oral teachings" which could not be checked for accuracy once the apostles had all died. i.e., it's God himself inspiring them to preserve His Holy word, as He did with the Old Testament manuscripts before the first advent of Christ. Sola Scriptura does not mean the rejection of every tradition, Sola Scriptura means that any form of tradition must be tested by the higher authority, and that authority can only be God (and thus God's inspired Holy word, the Bible).

False Dichotomy between Scripture and Traditions of God

The Roman Catholic Church is in error creating a dichotomy between two things that are not contrasted, and cannot be separated. And then they attempt to use that false dichotomy to deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

1st Corinthians 11:2

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

2nd Timothy 1:13

"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus."

2nd Timothy 2:1-2

"Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
and the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

2 Tim. 3:14-17

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
and that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what Paul was writing to the Church. In order to deny Sola Scriptura, we must make the erroneous "assumption" that what Paul taught in the presence of many witnesses is different from what he wrote to entire Church. Is such an idea founded in facts? The answer is no, of course not. What Paul wrote to Timothy, the Corinthians, etc., was the inspired word of God explaining Old Testament mysteries in New Testament truths. To use his traditions/ordinances as proof is more a rationalization of oral traditions today, not proof of it.

1st Thessalonians. 2:13

"For this reason also we thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in Truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

2nd Thessalonians 2:15

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

There is nothing future about these passages at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that "will be" delivered? Does Paul say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral tradition [paradosis] or ordinance that they have been taught has already been delivered to the entire Church at Thessalonica. Now, what does oral refer to? We first note that the context of the passage is the Gospel and its work among the Thessalonians. The tradition/ordinances Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary, Purgatory, and Repetitions of hail Mary. It wasn't the traditions of Papal Infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic. It was a topic that was close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm--in what? Was it in oral traditions about subjects and doctrines not found in the scriptures? God forbid! No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in what he has orally taught them of what is already in the gospel. The Old Testament concealed is the New Testament revealed. There is simply nothing in these passages to support the theory of a separate oral tradition "different" from what was written or what Paul taught concerning Old Testament prophecy. Note it says what Paul taught "whether by word, or our epistle (letter). He's stressing that whether they heard it in a sermon or testimony, or whether they read it in a letter. It's not oral versus word, it's the oral of the word. i.e., explaining the word orally. Likewise note that in passages like 1st Peter chapter 1, the consistency of his Peter's teaching with that of the prophets, and of the other Apostles is vividly stressed.

1st Peter 1:10-11

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."

The unity of the Old Testament with the apostolic teachings is self-evident. It's not new Oral Revelations of Purgatory, Mass and Meatless Fridays they are expounding upon, it is the revelation of the Old Testament Prophets.

2nd Peter 3:1-2

"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:"

Peter talked about a more sure word of prophecy (2nd Peter 1:19-21) that the Church would do well to take heed of as unto a light that shines in a dark place. Roman Catholicism's idea of oral tradition of Church doctrine is quite different from the picture we get when we actually read scripture.

A good example of what has become known as Sola Scriptura is made plain in the picture of the Abrahamic Covenant. God again reveals Himself, apart from a divine expositor, and pledges Himself to fulfill His covenant (Gen. 15). When Abram seeks confirmation of God's Glorious Promises, the Lord confirms His divine Word by His divine Word.

Hebrews 6:13

"For when God made promises to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself.."

No Pontiff or magisterium or sacred tradition is invoked to verify God's Word. That's an important point not to be missed. The supreme authority is the Lord's "own testimony" to His word. No further appeal is possible. He didn't swear by the Priests, He swore by Himself. Nothing else could confirm God's own word but God's word alone. Other than Himself, His holy word stands alone as the supreme authority of man. Truly, what other authority is equal, higher, better, greater, from a better source or more trustworthy? What other source is infallible beside the word of God? Hasn't even the history of the Church revealed that there is none but God? Which is why Jesus always directed those with questions and objections to His teachings to the scriptures. Both ancient theology endorses this, as well as the New Testament Church. As in the past, God's people must discern truth and lies by going directly to the scriptures. As God explained in the parable of the rich man, when confronted with the question of how they would believe, He directed them to the scriptures.

Luke 16:29

"...they have Moses and the prophets, Let them hear them!"

God could have very easily said, they have the Church, the Church leaders, the magisterium, but He appealed to the scriptures as the source of the authority to believe that they should listen to. Moses and the Prophets are a synonym for the written scriptures. Christ even tells us why people get into errors in their doctrines, and it's not because they search the scriptures to understand what is written. It's because they don't search the scriptures to understand what God has really said.

Matthew 22:28-29

"Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

Did Christ say they were in error because they weren't paying attention to their congregational leaders, or because they didn't know the oral traditions of the Priests or Pharisees? No, they were in error because they had no real knowledge of the holy scriptures, which explained this.

Likewise, Christ did not direct anyone to secondary explications or extra-Biblical Hebrew traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms, but always directed them to examine the word of God itself. He alternately declares, "read the scriptures, it is written, search the scriptures, have ye not read, as saith the scriptures, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, as saith Isaiah, etc., etc." While Roman Catholicism de-emphasizes the scriptures, Christ our Saviour continually places more emphasis upon it.

Luke 24:27

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

And in the New testament, the exhortation to dependence upon the authority of scripture continues, (Romans 15:4; Ephesians 6:17; 2nd Timothy 3:16; 2nd Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:3). Scripture commends those who examine the written revelation of God (as open minded, and more noble) and illustrates that Christians have the ability to rightly divide and interpret scripture apart from any (supposed) infallible interpreter. And this is whether that be congregation, Priest or pontiff (2nd Timothy 2:15; Acts 17:11). Interpretation must come from the Word of God. As a little child humbly, honestly and simplistically asked:

"..how do we know it's REALLY God's Word, if we don't get it from God's word?"

And all God's people said, ...A M E N ! Out of the mouth of babes!
For knowing the nature of man, that indeed is a good question. Again, note the manner in which Christ refuted error. It was, "God said thus, but you say.. -Matthew 15:4-5; 10-11)." That was the manner in which He drew a clear, concise contrast between the written word of God and the oral traditions and ordinances of men. And that should be an example and lesson to us.

1st Peter 2:21

"for even hereunto were ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps."

We can readily understand the frustration of those who are indoctrinated and thus think Christians should listen to the Roman Catholic Church instead of God, and how it's annoying to them when we won't bow to that Church authority. But there is a very clear warning about making man the authority in the Church, and it's found in 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2. We must never position man to sit and rule in the Temple of God "as if" he were the head of the Church. We have but one Holy Father.

John 17:11

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

This is the "only" place that Holy father is mentioned in scripture, and it is not describing a fleshly head of the Church, but God. Only God can rule (have ultimate authority) over the Church. And God's word is the Bible.

The fact is, the only way that man is going to stand with the righteous, overcoming in Christ, is if he has "kept" the word of God as truth, and the word of man as error. That would be called the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Belief in the word of God over man's words of tradition is what separates true believers from false ones. It's what separates those who can and will be deceived, from the Elect who can never be deceived into false Gospels. We know what the truth is because we know "where" the truth is. It's in the word of God alone, not in the men who lead the Church. The faithful Church is the witness of God's truth. They bear testimony to God's truth, and that's what makes the Church the Pillar and ground of this truth. The foundation is Christ, THEE truth, the Rock upon which man stands wherein he can never be moved. Faithfulness to truth (which is God's Word, not man's word) makes us as a tree planted by the rivers of life. God's word alone is true, man's word is not. Even "as it is written:"

Romans 3:3

"For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God Forbid! Yea, Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

The truth is in God's Word, not in the words of Pontiff J., or Pastor Brown, or Church tradition #88, or in Tony Warren. And if we don't read it in God's word, then it's not God's word. In determining which word has the authority, let God be true, and every man a Liar.

In conclusion, let us therefore remember that scripture declares that if we build upon a foundation that is not the word of God, and will not hear God's word, then we build upon a foundation which will crumble when the winds blow and the rains come (Luke 6:47-49). God likens us then to a foolish man. The wise in Christ will build upon God's word alone as foundation, the supreme authority. A Church built upon Sola Scriptura is a Church built upon a firm foundation on the word of God, which will never fall.

The effects of the distinctives of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura should be seen in the church manifested as Worship, Evangelism, Obedience, Witnessing, and a Godly lifestyle. As faithful Christians we cannot place our trust or confidence in men who are puffed up in their own delusions of infallibility. Rather we must stand with the divinely inspired word of God, the authority that teaches us what to think of men. Even as the Apostle Paul cautioned.

1st Corinthians 4:6

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

Rather than agree with the magisterium of Catholicism, we agree with the Apostle Paul and learn from him not to think of men above that which is written. Again, this is the faithful going back to the scriptures as the "authoritative" rule of faith. And can we do anything less than preach the same truths of the authority of the word that they did?

2nd Timothy 4:2

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."

May the Lord who is Gracious and merciful above all, give us the wisdom and understanding to come to the truth of His most Holy Word.

A m e n !

Peace,

Feel free to copy, duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.

Created 8/3/98 / Last Modified 2/22/04
The Mountain Retreat / twarren10@aol.com

Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?

According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical by which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?"

The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below.

In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:

1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?

The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's Word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.

2) It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition -- for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust Sacred Tradition, then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.

If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture effectively leaves the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?

4) If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in Sacred Tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.

5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.

Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?

To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.

6) One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition, as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.

Conclusion

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesnt, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.

Objections Answered

The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.
1. The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn't require inspiration of any sort. But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word "tradition" is changed between the first and second reference. There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired. But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary-worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.
2. Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic church produced the Bible. The RCC did not produce the Bible. God produced the Bible and the Christian Church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored. To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means. This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?
Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to scripture.
1. At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the Word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised by people that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.
2. The Bible clearly tells us that God's Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God's Word warns us against following it.
3. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. See "Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition". The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other," (1 Cor. 4:6).
Heb. 7:7 is not about scripture, but about people and cannot be used to subject Sacred Tradition to the Bible
1. It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,
  "Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. ⁵ And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. ⁶ But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. ⁷ But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. ⁸ And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. ⁹ And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, ¹⁰ for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendents of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship.1 It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. We know that there is a principle of the greater in authority blessing the lesser. Can we not also apply this same principle of authority to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church's claim on Sacred Tradition as being authoritative as compared to the authority of Scripture? I do not see why not. After all, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to Scripture to support its Sacred Tradition. In so doing, it is submitting itself to the authority of Scripture for validation of its principle.

This article is also available in: Español

1. Federal Headship is the teaching that has been seen in the context of Hebrews 7, of how the father represents his descendents. For more information on this please see Federal Headship.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.