Home
Index

Is the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Biblical?

by Tony Warren

    Roman catholics often allege that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" is itself unbiblical because the teaching is absent from the holy canon. They also believe that the holy canon alone is not sufficient for determining doctrine, but their sacred oral traditions are also an equal authority. In this study we will look at the question, "is sola scriptura biblical," and seek to determine by God's Word if it is a doctrine founded solidly upon the rock of scripture.

To begin with, we need to first define the term "sola scriptura." It is a latin phrase that was coined by the Reformers during 1500's. It means "scripture solely," or "scripture alone." By these words the protesters of that day were standing up for the Biblical principle that the scripture being God's holy inspired Word delivered to the saints, was the sole pure (unadulterated by man) rule of faith and practice for the Church.

    Psalms 12:6-7

The holy scriptures are the preserved "Word of God" to men, and thus the ultimate authority for the Church. Authority [b]over what His Word says[/b] can only belong to Him, and He does not subject His sovereign utterings to the private interpretations of the Roman catholic Church, it's Magisterium, or the Pope. The cry of "Sola Scriptura" in those days was the declaration of the sufficiency and supreme authority of God's preserved Word over Church tradition and interpretations. Since the position of the Roman catholic Church concerning authority was mutually exclusive to the position of those believers who protested it (and thus were called protest-ant), at least one had to be incorrect. If these Protestants were going stand for God's Word as the ultimate authority, then there would have to be a "Reforming" of the Church to restore subservience to the Word. Much like when a criminal reforms to obey the law that he should have been obedient to all along. These believers understood that they had to return to the former reliance upon the Word of God as supreme authority. It had become self-evident that leaning upon God's Word alone as the ultimate authority was the only way to know what was truly God's teaching, as opposed to man's teachings in the name of God.

    Ezekiel 22:28

The only way way for Christians to truly know which prophets were saying "thus saith the Lord when the Lord has not said," was by checking what man said against what the Word of God itself declared. In other words, by making scripture alone the final authority concerning doctrine.

Actually, calling it "sola scriptura" is a bit of a misnomer, because this doctrine does not mean that these Christians believe that there are no other authorities, nor that they have no value or place in the Church. Rather, it means that other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God. And it implies several other things. First, that the scriptures are a direct revelation from God and as such, are to be looked upon as binding in their declarations. Second, it also illustrates that the scriptures are all that is necessary for Church faith and practice. And not only that the scriptures are sufficient, but that as the Words of the judge, they also are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal matters. Because no matter how good and faithful a Church leader may be in giving his guidance, all fathers, teachers, popes, and councils are still fallible. The only infallible "source" for truth is God, and His only Word to us today is the scriptures. The only way we can be deceived is if we start listening to men who ignore scripture, twist scriptures, or add to scripture. We were warned before to beware of such manipulators of the Word, implying that we should be careful to hold fast to the authority of the word, rather than listen to those who twist it.

    2nd Peter 3:16-17

We are warned against those who wrest (twist) scriptures in order to get people to follow their own ideas and doctrines. Inherent in this warning is the illustration that God's Word is the authority, not subject to this twisting or manipulation. So that if we follow God's Word authoritatively, we cannot be led away with the error of the wicked. i.e., we will be obedient to what it says versus what these claim it says by wresting it.

Sola scriptura ultimately points to a most basic concern of the faithful Church which was also expressed in their belief in "Soli Deo Gloria," meaning, to God alone be the Glory! This was the expression of the true Christian perspective that God should receive the Glory and not men. It is understood that is done by keeping God's Word as the final say in all matters. The head of the Church is Christ, the infallible saviour rather than a fallible man. And so likewise, the authority of the Church must likewise be the Word of God, and not the word of man. No matter how holy a person may appear, his word is still the word of man and thus (by default) subordinate to God's Word. What is called sola scriptura was, and is an essential part of true Christianity. For it is the difference between God's traditions or ordinances, and man's traditions or ordinances.

The oral traditions of the Church are subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation. There is absolutely no guarantee given by God or scripture (His Holy Word) that oral tradition would be preserved or that it was even needed. Indeed, 2nd Timothy chapter 3 strongly declares such things are not needed because the Word of God is sufficient to the task.

    2nd Timothy 3:16-17

This Greek word translated "thoroughly furnished" is [exartizo] meaning to be able to accomplish fully. The illustration put forth here is that the scriptures furnish all the instruction in doctrine needful for the Christian's perfection. In other words, there is no deficiency in the scriptures that would cause man to have to go elsewhere to find understanding of doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness. It's all right here in God's Word.

This greek word translated "inspiration of God" is [theopneustos], meaning God breathed. i.e., it comes directly from the mouth of God so that it is the absolute authority direct from His lips. And this word is the basis for the following points that are being made in that passage. Namely, that this is why it thoroughly furnishes for all needs and is profitable for all these things. If the scriptures were subject to man's private or personal interpretations, why did God provide His Word for instruction in righteousness, doctrine, reproof, and correction? Obviously oral traditions are not the authority or rule of faith, but what has been God breathed is.

Not only did the Old Testament scriptures thoroughly furnish men of that day unto all good works, but when we examine scriptures we see that the methodology of Christ Himself was to appeal to those holy scriptures as the the final authority on theological matters. He continually referenced the scriptures an example to us of how to prove the spirits. Christ as well as the Apostles quoted scripture to teach and rebuke. They never spoke of any oral tradition of the Old Testament congregation except to condemn it. That's not an insignificant point. Consider when Satan tested Christ, the Lord relied upon the authority of the scripture to prove Satan's error.

    Matthew 4:3-4

What proceeds out of the mouth of God is His holy Word, and His holy Word is what is written in the Bible. That is what Christ is saying that man lives by. The Word of God is our spiritual nourishment, not the words of men. Jesus could have answered this tempting any way that He wanted, for He is God and an original and perfect answer He could have spoken afresh at any moment. But He instead deferred to what was already written in the scriptures (Deuteronomy 8:3) as the reply to the adversary. In other words, what was already written was the perfect answer thoroughly furnishing us with what we needed. It was what God had inspired to be written, not the oral traditions of the day, but what had proceedeth from God's mouth and had been written in His Word. And this is a lesson for all faithful Christians of what authority we should go to in order to prove what is truth and what is error. Christ answered this way not only in answering un-biblical assertions, but also when presented with scriptures that were taken out of context. He always defered to other scriptures which "qualified" the scripture that was spoken out of context. Again, a lesson for us all. For example;

    Matthew 4:5-11

In other words, Jesus replies to scripture taken out of context with an additional scripture that clarified (not denied) it. So we see the meaning in this case is, Yes, scripture says that God will watch over us, but scripture also says that doesn't mean that we can test/tempt the Lord. So the authority of scripture clearly delineated by our Lord, even in the face of one misapplying other scriptures. Again we see that the perfect answer by Christ to combat an erroneous understanding of scripture, was to quote additional Scripture to qualify or shed more light on it's true meaning. It was scripture that was authoritative over what man might read in scripture and think was right in his own understanding of one passage. We put our trust in His Words, to interpret His Words, not our own. The proof text of the principle that the Bible is it's own interpreter, that we not rely on our own understanding.

    Proverbs 3:5-6

We cannot in our own understanding isolate one scripture, or hold to one scripture to the negating of all others. Because another passage may limit or explain more about the first passage. In understanding and accepting this, we bring harmony to both passages (as Christ did), denying neither.

    Matthew 4:8

Again, Jesus presents scripture to counter Satan's ideas and visions of grandeur. He says, It is Written! In other words, Christ says "Thus saith the Lord concerning this." Never does He exhort that God's Priests say, our that leaders say, or oral tradition says, He says that it is written. This is our example of the posture we are to take with anyone who comes declaring erroneous doctrines. We compare man's words to God's Word in order to try the spirits, countering their tradition with the authority in God's Word. This is what we are to do with regards to any debate of doctrines of the Church. The principle hermeneutics is to always defer to the authority of scripture, not religious leaders or heads of the Church. This is just as Christ demonstrated in His debates with the religious leaders of His day. He appealed to the scriptures, not to any ecclesiastical body.

    Matthew 21:42

This was written in the scriptures (Psalms 118:22), the authority which furnished them unto all good works. The authority that they should have placed above their traditions, searched out, and known of Christ. Likewise, the New Testament logically follows that same principle of thoroughly furnishing us unto all Good works. Once completed, the New Testament scriptures (like the old) is our guidebook for what is truth. It (old and new together) is a completed work, not a work or book in progress, or a incomplete canon. We are forbidden to add to it or take away from it by oral tradition or any other means. The Bible is now one complete cohesive whole, a more sure word of prophecy that must not be privately interpreted by Church leaders. Being the written breath of God written to man, it cannot then have man in authority over it to interpret it. It didn't come by private or personal interpretations, and it can't be understood by our own private interpretations.

    2nd Peter 1:19-21

These human authors wrote what God moved them to write, word for word. The scripture is not borne out of any man's mind, traditions, or Church leaders, it came directly from God. You will note that though some people will deny that sola scriptura is taught in the bible, when you reference the verses that show the doctrine breathed by scripture, they will usually retort that they do not believe that one can really understand the Bible without their church interpreting it. This is a classic case of circular reasoning.

Other such apologists that say that this doctrine was not even heard of until "the reformation" of the 16th century. This inaccurate and a self serving claim which can be proven false quite easily (even apart from scripture). Just read this quote from the 5th century, 1100 years before the Reformation and see if you can glean 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 principle of Sola Scriptura, or the doctrine of ultimate authority of the scriptures? The author is Augustine. 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 that I've read. And so we understand that this argument fails on both fronts. On both Biblical grounds and on historical grounds. The Word of God both is, and was the supreme authority of the Church. It's not something the Protestants dreamed up, the Apostles, Christ, and all the faithful fathers deferred to it. The true Church authority is Christ, and so we don't need a doctrine of special lineal apostolic succession (as Roman catholicism defines it), the Apostles had an office which was instituted by Christ and which was designed to be passed on dynastically. That is to say, believers in the "family" of God would continue in an unbroken line through the indivisible Church, which would never be without seed.


Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?
Can the scriptures contradict what some allege is oral "apostolic tradition," and that tradition still be declared of God? The answer of course is a resounding, absolutely not! God is not the author of confusion. The undeniable fact is that two infallible God-breathed sources cannot contradict each other, or else one of them is not infallible. That's not rhetoric, that's an incontrovertible fact. Yet God's scripture and Roman catholic Church traditions constantly contradict each other. This should alert any faithful student of Holy Canon that one is neither infallible, nor of God. Here is an incomplete list of just a few of the myriad of examples..

  1. God's Word teaches that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4,20), and all sin was purged by the cross, and we were purified in Christ as he rose from the dead. While Roman Catholic traditions teach that sin can be purged later, in a place called Purgatory (place of purifying).
  2. God's Word teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1) but Roman tradition says they are different offices.
  3. God's Word teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), while Roman Catholic tradition corrects this, claiming that the Priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.
  4. God's Word teaches that we should not use vain repetitions in prayers (Matthew 6:7) thinking that we will be heard for our much speaking, while the Roman catholic traditions teach repeating hail Mary in prayers as penitence, as if God indeed will hear us for our much repetition.
  5. God's Word teaches that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), while the Roman Catholic traditions claim that's not true, as Mary was also sinless.
  6. God's Word 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 and offices within the Christian community, that must be dealt out by their Church.
  7. God's Word teaches that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4-5), but the Roman Catholic tradition makes no such claim, nor teaches against this practice.
  8. God's Word teaches that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but Roman Catholic tradition claims Mary is co-mediator or Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix with Christ.
  9. God's Word 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 upon which the Church is built is Pope Peter, and that the pontiff is the head of the Church, an aberration which in effect makes God's Church, a two headed Church!
  10. God's Word teaches that all Christians can and should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but Roman Catholic tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.
Those who trust God's Word and lean not unto their own understanding, know by the Spirit that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Pharisees, applied equally to the reformers, as well as to those of our day. Tradition must not usurp authority of the Bible.

"..thus you have made the commandment of God of non effect by your traditions!" -Matthew 15:6
Clearly God warns about traditions that nullify the gospel. And comparing these man made traditions with God's Word, sadly we see that this practice of unrighteous negating of God's Word continues today. We simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other, and both be an infallible teachings of God. It is abject confusion. Any oral traditions that are passed upon the Church is subject to the written Word of God. This is how it's always been. It is as it was for the Scribes and Pharisees, and to deny this principle is tortuous of scripture.

Even if there was indeed an ongoing oral tradition (which there is not), it still would require a standard point of reference to check itself against, such as God speaking from a burning Bush, or from a smoking Mountain, or the scriptures. For we cannot just "trust" that men are bringing God's Word and not their own. True Christians, under God's Spiritual direction, realize the danger of corruption of oral traditions given by fallible men. This danger was clearly illustrated in the Pharisees, and throughout Church history. Faithfulness of the congregation requires a scriptural basis. God fearing Christians understand the need for a final authoritative checkpoint to which every person must be subject to, is essential. That was why the importance of maintaining God's faithful Word authoritatively became of very great concern to the Protestants. The same as the Scribes and Pharisees weren't allowed add to the Old Testament books by their traditions, the congregational leaders today cannot add to the New Testament books today by their traditions. If we were to totally ignore history that during the first three or four centuries, no Roman Church nor Pope made the claims they now make (as the foremost Church historians overwhelmingly attest), then we are building a house on a foundation of sand. And while I'll be the first to tell you that secular history means nothing, the Roman catholic Church rests upon it's beliefs in history. Even if we were to assume there was such a Church headed by an infallible Pope, as the Roman Church alleges, then this could not even begin to explain the importance the early Church placed upon 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'sguidance would know the truth more certainly and accurately than any written word. The passage of 2nd Peter 1:19 where we read that, "we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it", would become meaningless if the doctrines concerning Oral traditions were true. Let's face facts, oral tradition is nothing more than man's wisdom masqurading as God's precepts. It's man saying "thus saith the Lord, when the Lord has not said." Because today God's Word is in God's Word.

    1st Corinthians 2:13

The gospel message is not taught in the words of man's wisdom, such as the human philosophy of Church traditions, but in the words that the Holy Spirit teaches. The word that faith comnes from is the Word of God. The Holy Spirit teaches us by our comparing spiritual with spiritual. Not comparing words of human origin as is employed by those who pride themselves in the authorities of this world. But comparing God's Word, which is spiritual. It is the only way to be certain that we are receiving Spiritual truth manifested direct from God and not man. This is speaking of the instruction by which the spiritual things of God are made known to the Christian church (2nd Timothy 3:16). Remember, we learned that it was the scriptures that were God breathed. And we compare what is God breathed by what is God breathed. This should be self-evident to faithful students of the Bible. Those who are not Spiritual cannot compare Spiritual, because they cannot acknowledge the Word of God is that Spiritual.

    1st Corinthians 14:36-37

In order to be spiritual, one must acknowledge the command authority of the Word of God. It's not subject to interpretation, manipulation or change by tradition, it is immutable.

So as previously stated, true Christians must realize that oral traditions are indeed subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation and "therefore" of necessity require a standard point of "God Breathed" reference to check itself against. Scripture supplied and continues to supply this Check. By this only we can prove (test) the Spirits to know whether what they are saying is of God or not (1st John 4:1). How would we do this without the authority of scripture? Tradition that proclaims what is and is not Biblical practices cannot have authority over scripture. For scripture is what God Himself said. Why would any Christian in the right state of mind consider tradition able to negate God's Word? It may have authority of it's age, or antiquity, or popular consent, but it does not have ultimate coercion or compulsion over the Word. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any Church, any tradition, or any Pope or minister's words, are equal to Holy canon. Therefore, scripture alone is the final authority to try the spirits, and sola scriptura is proved.


Can Tradition be on a Par with God's Word?

    Since the Bible "is" the Word of God (as even Roman Catholics agree), and God is the supreme authority, then it's only rational and logical to profess that any other authority cannot either contradict it, or be on a par with it, or be above it. I.e., there is no authoritative word higher than God's. Therefore, logically speaking, in order for someone's word to be on a par with God's Word, the one speaking it would have to be God, or at the very least equal to God, or have God speak to him. The Bible itself testifies that it is God breathed, and sufficient unto all good works. When God told Paul that "My Grace is sufficient for thee," He was illustrating that therewas nothing outside of scripture that he lacked. Oral traditions have no such testimony of sufficiency from God.

    2nd Corinthians 9:8

We need not man's traditions or new revelations, by grace of God the Word thoroughly furnishes him unto all good works. Neither the Pope, a Priest, or the holiest Minister is equal to God to have his word be on the same level with God's Word, unless he is "quoting God" Word for Word. Nor is God speaking to anyone from the smoke on the mountain today, or creating new oral scripture testified from out of the glory of a cloud. The Bible is a completed book, not an incomplete book that needs additions.

    Revelation 22:18

Christ established that a plague would be upon anyone who added to the Word of God's revelation. This of course is the tangled web in which some professed Christians finds themselves by claiming tradition is an addition to God's Word. Simply saying God gave someone oral tradition isn't sufficient for anyone to believe such claims. Particularly when those traditions contradict and nullify God's Word, as those traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees did. Christ condemned these traditions saying they made the Word of God of non-effect.

    Matthew 15:3

We could ask the same thing today of many Christians. We simply can't have traditions that transgress or are contradictory to the commandments of God. God breathed His Word through the Prophets and Apostles, and moved them to place it in the form of the written Word, but unless God is continuing to write his book (the scriptures) through leaders of the Church after the Bible was complete, then it is self-evident that giving of the law through the prophets has ended. If it has not, then the Pope must rip out the page of Revelation where God says don't add to His word, throw it away, proclaim the Bible incomplete, and write down every infallible oral tradition he (supposedly) received from God, and place it on the pages of the Bible. Because if true, it is the Word of God and belongs there. If not true, then then the wrath of God abides upon those who place workds into God's mouth. If tradition was on a par with God's Word, then it would be God's Word. In fact, then there would be no oral tradition, because it would join written ordinances.

More than that, we see in scripture that traditions can become corrupt in the congregation of God (even as it certainly had with the Pharisees in Jesus' day -mark 7:9), and so common sense dictates that it simply cannot and must not be trusted as the ultimate authority, as the Word of God is. These doctrines of men are often unjustifiable by scripture, and usually contradictory to it. Not surprisingly, scripture bears out this truth that any tradition or ordinance must be subordinate to the Word. Consider carefully..

    Mark 7:7-9

Clearly, and without ambiguity, Christ is telling them that the tradition of their congregation was subject to the scriptures, and not vice versa. Roman Catholicism has elevated tradition to the place of God’s revealed Word, and Christ Himself rejects such an elevation. Tradition has no authority over the Word of God, but must be subservient to it. Any Christian doctrine which denies this, considering scriptures such as this one, is by definition a pseudo-doctrine. Jesus would not have condemned the congregation for their traditions if the tradition of God's people was to be set on a par with scripture. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense today.

    Proverbs 30:5-6

This is a solemn declaration that every word of God is tried and pure and that we are not to add to His words, lest we be found liars. This law of God is an enduring restriction on God's revelation. Holy men of old who spake 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, under God's care, we have the authority of God's Word. No other supreme authorities, or institution, or object, is 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 (Ecclesiastes 12:13). We must not subsidize God's Word by claiming that we can bring added traditions to it. The fear of God is demonstrated in those who love God and keep His Word alone as the final arbiter of truth. For with the Word comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes fear.

    Proverbs 2:5-6

When Christ told the people that "it was written," He was encouraging them to seek knowledge and understanding of theology from the scriptures. To search the scriptures in fear of God, for that is where they would find confirmation, not in the words of congregational leaders.

    Acts 17:11-12

They understood that the scriptures, and not their congregational leaders, were the final authority on what was truth, and understanding this, they knew that those who reject the scripture as the only 'infallible' rule of faith and practice, are ultimately subordinating the Word of God to tradition by making leaders the 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 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 are all responsible to study the Bible. We cannot leave that for others to do for us.

    John 12:48

No one accepting the false doctrine of Church authority over the Word will be able to stand before God on judgment day and plead, "..the Pope, the Magisterium, or my Pastor told me to believe this, so I'm not guilty." There is no such 'excuse' available to man for his own failure to be obedient to God's Word. We are commanded to listen to God's Word rather than man's word, for God's Word is true, but man is a liar.

    Romans 3:3-4

The text records, "as it is written!" Again, God directs us back to His written Word to establish the principle that Sola Scriptura is God breathed, not man breathed. As it is written, man is a liar, but God is truth, and thus we should not put our faith in the oral traditions of men. It is the law that will judge us if we do, because it is the fact that we are "responsible" for obedience that justifies our punishment. God says, "as it is written," and that is found in Psalms where God reveals our sins are against Him, and His judgements justified by His Word that we are responsible to.

    Psalms 51:4

Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Neglecting this most basic principle, we will be judged accordingly. Because we should know even of ourselves that the truth is in God's Word and not in the words of a Pontiff, or a Minister, or in Church tradition. If we don't read doctrine in God's Word, then it's not the doctrine of Christ once delivered unto the saints. In determining which word has the authority, our rule is always, let God be true, and every man a Liar. Which authority is really infallible, and which authority should we follow? Is it God's Word (a given), or is it traditions?

    John 10;27

What is the voice of Christ? Is it Church leadership, a Priest, the Magisterium, or is it the Word of God? Certainly this is the crux of the matter. And the truth is, it is Scripture alone that should be the final Authority in matters of faith, practice, and doctrine of the Church (not the only authority, but the final, or ultimate Authority).

The Lord Jesus Christ taught us replete with examples of this principle. When the Pharisees argued with Jesus the points of the law of God concerning the Sabbath, did Jesus petition to tradition concerning it? Did he lean to ecumenical counsels? No, He leaned upon the written scriptures. ..as should we!

    Matthew 12:3-5

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

    Matthew 19:4-5

Again, as the sadducees questioned Him concerning doctrines of the resurrection. Did Jesus appeal to congregational heads or tradition? No, He appealed to the written Word.

    Matthew 22:31-32

Again, when the man came to Him and asked what they must do to inherit eternal life, did Jesus say, talk to your Priest, get Church absolution, or follow the congregational traditions? No, he once again appealed him to look to the scripture.

Luke 10:26

You see, that is where they would find the answers. In the scriptures! It is Christ who both appeals to scripture, and holds men responsible for not knowing them.

    Matthew 21:42-43

Therefore, or in other words, because you didn't search the scriptures that you might have truth, you will not have the Kingdom that those very same scriptures spoke of. Thias is illustrating once again the sufficiency of scripture, otherwise God would not have condemned them for it.

Again, in matthew chapter 22 the Sadducees, denying the doctrine of the resurrection and trying to trap Jesus with a loaded question, tempted him in hopes to snare Him. Jesus could have there on the spot given them a legitimate and awe inspiring answer without an appeal to Scripture. It is not curious that He did not, but instead, as usual, appeals to scripture. He tells them,

    Matthew 22:29

Once again, Jesus rejects ecclesiastical tradition of the Sadducees in favor of "Sola Scriptura!" Christ holds men accountable for knowing the scriptures by saying, (as the Church today should say of error), you are wrong because you don't really know the scriptures! In other words, the scriptures is what they should have known that would guide them into the truth, but they didn't know them, thus they were in error! It was not in the Congregational leaders and traditions, Jesus appeals to God's Word!

    Matthew 26:24

God, the Perfect teacher, yet He is appealing solely to Scripture to show them that He must do what is written. Sola Scriptura! Again, when the Jewish people sought to Kill Christ (-John 5:18, as they thought that they were God's Chosen People and had Eternal life), Jesus once again directed them to the real Authority where they would find the truth about the matter.

    John 5:39

Why would Jesus be sending them to a non-Authoritative source for truth? ..He wouldn't! He directed them to scripture for the very same reason that the Bereans (acts 17:11) appealed to scripture. Because it (not the leaders or tradition of their congregation) was the ultimate Authority, as it was the infallible Word of God!

    Acts 17:2-3

Some of these men believed because Paul reasoned with them not from his own philosophy, or from oral traditions, or from the words of congregational leaders, he reasoned with them out of the scriptures. Why did Paul have to use the scriptures to prove the true ministry of Christ? It was because both he and those whom he was instructing, understood that scripture is the breath of God and the final authority. It cannot be overridden becasue it is the divine revelation from God.

Reformed Protestantism understands this wisdom most evident in Christ's teachings. These few scriptures I have noted here are by no means an exhaustive list, but just enough to demonstrate that the Lord always appeals to scripture authoritatively, an example for faithful Christians everywhere. Not one single time do we ever see Christ appeal to any oral tradition of the Old Testament congregation, except to condemn it. To hold traditions over God's word is to handle the Word deceitfully. Because if we follow after man's philosophy and tradition over God's Word, then we are not being honest with ourselves concerning the ultimate authority of God's Word.

    Colossians 2:8

Christ is called the Word of God for a reason. He is the Word made flesh, that those who have Him dwell within them, have an earnest desire to obedience to the Word and treasure it above man's vain philosophies and traditions. Lacking this, man lacks the evidence of a true personal relationship with Christ (1st John 2:4).


Roman Catholic Objections?

Most Roman Catholics object to Sola Scriptura from two distinct fronts. 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 unbiblicalness of this teaching, and that

(#2) The Scripture nowhere teaches the doctrine.

Isn't it ironic that in both cases, they appeal to scripture as the "final proof or authority" that their tradition is correct? When it suits their purpose, they can always appeal to scripture (as in the keys of the kingdom, Peter the rock, translations of Mary's other Children, etc., etc.) as the final say, but when it doesn't suit their purpose, curiously, scripture isn't really the final Authority on doctrine.

Nevertheless, the first argument is based on 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). I have yet to find anyone except catholics themselves who believes Sola Scriptura means what they purport, so this argument is the proverbial "Straw Man" argument. Things that Peter was inspired of God to say (oral tradition or ordinances) became the written "Word of God" as they were penned, just as the Old Testament was. But the Bible is Complete today, I.e., there is no book of Pope John, or Pope this or that, like there is a book of Peter or John or jude, etc. Because the Bible is Complete!

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

It would seem to me that given the abundance of examples and illustrations of God, that the onus is on the RCC to "disprove" the sufficiency of scripture, rather than on the Church to prove it's sufficiency, because both sides agree scripture "is" the Word of God, and no other Authority is above God!

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 that "oral revelation" which was not found in Scripture, is apostolic. 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!

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 scriptures 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

It is indeed agian ironic that the Roman catholic Church appeals to scripture itself to prove tradition. However, in appealing to the scriptures as authority to prove inerrant traditions, they have shown that the scriptures are themselves the final authority over, superior to, and the definer of traditions. For if scriptures verify it, or deny it, it cannot be deemed a lie. Therefore, the scriptures "are" the final authority and shown to be superior to any tradition.

The basis of the Roman church error concerning traditions lie in their creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny Sola Scriptura.

    1 Cor. 11:2

    2 Tim. 1:13     2 Tim. 2:1-2     2 Tim. 3:14-17 There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what was written. 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 Churches! Is such an idea founded in reality? Of course not! It's rationalization by the Roman church in support of oral tradition, not proof of it. The Church did not make scripture authoritative, they were in and of themselves authoritative.

    1st Thessalonians. 2:13

    2nd Thessalonians 2:15 There is nothing future about this passage 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 teaching which he refers to 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 traditions Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary, Purgatory, Repetitions of hail mary, or Papal infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic, one that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm--in what? Was it in oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in what he has orally taught them of what is in the gospel. The Old Testament concealed is the New Testament revealed. There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what was written or what Paul taught.

Note in 2nd Peter 3:2, Peter stresses the consistency of his teaching with that of the prophets, and of the other apostles. The unity of the Old Testament with the apostolic writings is illustrated in passages such as 1st Peter 1:10-12, and 2nd Peter 1:19-21.

One example of what is known as Sola Scriptura is made plain in 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

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 Alone! Other than Himself, His Holy Word stands "alone" as the supreme authority. That is the only way that man can avoid being seduced by false teachers. So while the Roman catholic apologist may teach how scripture is unclear and needs an infallible interpreting body (the Magisterium), our Lord says just the opposite.

    1st John 2:26-27

The infallible teacher is the Holy father in heaven, not a man on earth. And rather than illustrate the confusion of scripture needing a man to interpret for you, it illustrates the perspicuity of the written word. the scriptures are His divine Word, not oral Church tradition. Truly, what other authority is on a Par? ..or Higher? ..or Better? ..from a better platform? ..more Trustworthy? ..infallible? The answer is, None! 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 may discern truth by going directly to the scriptures: As God explained in the parable, when confronted with the question of how they would believe.

    Luke 16:29

God could have very easily said, they have the Church, the Church leaders, the magisterium, but He appealed to the scriptures as their source for Authority they should listen to. Christ even tells us why people get into errors in their doctrines. It's not because they lean unto understanding of the scriptures, but the exact opposite. It's because they do not understand them "because" they don't know them!

    Matthew 22:29

Christ did not direct anyone to secondary explications or extra-Scriptural Hebrew traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms but He directed them continually to examine the Word of God itself. He says, "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." In the New testament, the exhortation to the Authority of scripture continues, (Rom. 15:4; Eph. 6:17; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3). Scripture commends those who examine the written revelation of God ("open minded, and more noble" -Acts 17:11) and illustrates that Christians have the ability to rightly divide and interpret scripture apart from any (supposed) infallible interpreter whether Church or pontiff (2nd Timothy. 2:15; Acts 17:11). Interpretation must come from the Word of God. As a little girl humbly, honestly and simplistically asked,


"how do we know it's REALLY God's Word, unless we 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! No other words are absolutely trustworthy, and no other words are God breathed. Be they the words of Popes, Church leaders, creeds, councils or traditions of men, they have no sanction when they contradict the Word of God. Again, note the manner in which Christ refuted error. It was, "God said thus, but you say..." (Matt. 15:4-5; Mark 7:10-11) After Jesus mentioned, "God said," He then quoted Scripture. That was His manner in which He drew a clear, concise contrast between the written Word of God and the teachings of men. Let that be a lesson unto us.

    1st Peter 2:21

We can fully understand the frustration of those who think Christians should listen to the Roman Church instead of God, and how it's annoying when we won't bow to that authority. But there is a very clear warning about making man the Authority in the Church in 2nd Thessalonians 2. Man must never "Rule" in the Temple of GOD! Only God can Rule (have Authority) over the Church. And God's Word is the Bible! ..so really, what's to debate?

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. Belief in the Word of God over man's words of tradition is what separates true believers from unbelievers. It's what separates those who can 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 written Word from God, not the Church. The Church is the Pillar and ground of the truth, it's not the truth! It is merely the Witness of God's Truth. It bears faithful testimony to God's truth, and that's what makes it the Pillar and ground of the truth! 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 is true, man's tradition which contradicts it is not! As it is written,

    2nd Timothy 2:15-16

We are to shun profane or wicked and vain babblings by those who profess Christ, but lean unto their own understanding rather than the Word of God. This type Christian will only lead one into ungodliness. The vain babblings of men masqurading as God's Word are a violation of Revelation 22:18 in putting words into God's mouth. "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.." (Hebrews 1:2). For the Bible is complete and the Holy canon closed. No further Testaments or revelation is given.

If God's Word is our ultimate authority, and scripture God's Word, then it is self-evident to honest Christians that all other authorities are subordinate to this Word of God. Thus the question, "Is Sola Scriptura Biblical," is addressed by the scriptures themselves. The doctrine of having the scriptures as the sole ultimate authority for the Church today is a doctrine direct from the Word of God. If we build upon a foundation that is not the Word of God, and turn from it that we will not hear, then we are building on a foundation that will crumble when the winds blow and the rains beat against it (luke 6:47-49). God likens those who do so to a foolish man. That's what God says. Build upon God's Word alone as the supreme Authority and you build upon a solid Rock! Is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura Biblical? It's as Biblical as the firm foundation of the Word of God.

Peace,
printer Print Page

Copyright ©1998 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://www.mountainretreatorg.net
-------------------------*---------------------------

Feel free to 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 12/4/99
The Mountain Retreat / twarren10@aol.com
[ Top | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Other Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | F.A.Q. | Forum ]

Home