SOLA SCRIPTURA AND JESUS

 

Then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and set 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.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

This is the second of the devil’s temptations of Jesus recorded in Matthew’s gospel.  I find this particular temptation very interesting in the way that Jesus responds to Satan.  The devil actually quotes Psalm 91:11-12 to Jesus in order to trick Him into doing something foolish.  But think of the irony – the arch-enemy of Jesus Christ is quoting the Word of God (Scripture) to the very Word of God, Himself, in the flesh (Jesus Christ).  I think that it is safe to say that Jesus was familiar enough with the written Word of God to answer the devil correctly.

Nevertheless, I want to point out what is actually happening here in Matthew, from a doctrinal standpoint.  Jesus is reinforcing a well established concept – “Scripture interprets Scripture.”  That is, we can take the simpler and clearer passages that we all agree on and we can use those to establish principles to help us understand the less understood passages.

Notice that Jesus overcame the devil all three times with the phrase “It is written,” that is, with Scripture (Matthew 4:1-10).  On this particular occasion, He tells the devil, “It is written again…”!  He doesn’t try to invoke tradition, or the authority of some kind of Jewish “magisterium” like the Sanhedrin, or some past Hebrew council to thwart the enemy of our soul.  No, He goes even farther into the Word of God, because Scripture interprets Scripture. 

When someone misuses Scripture in a debate with you, you don’t have to divert to some other source – you go deeper into Scripture to clear the air.  You tell them, “But it is also written…”  You counter with the whole counsel of God in Scripture, always using it in context. 

This is the concept of Sola Scriptura, which is basically defined in this way:

Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for the church today because it is the only infallible one.  Other tools and sources can be used to help us in our Christian walk, but they are not infallible.  No other source is on the same level as Scripture.  We would do well to trust the church’s ultimate rule of faith.  

For a deeper understanding of the topic, the reader can type “Sola Scriptura” in the search bar in the upper left-hand corner of this page to view many articles on this topic.

A Much-Ignored Chapter

The apostle Paul reinforced this same concept in 2 Timothy 3.  This chapter is not in the Bible just to take up space.  It is an antidote to false teaching.  Second Timothy is the final epistle of the apostle Paul’s writings and there is certainly a sense of urgency in his message.  He knows that he will soon be martyred and he is leaving some very important “last words” for the church.  He warns that in the last days perilous times will come, doctrinally and otherwise (v. 1).  In the next few verses (v.2-9), he prophesies in graphic detail the circumstances with which the church will have to deal.  But many don’t realize that Paul was telling us that the threat would come from within the church!  We all know that the unbelieving world behaves in the way Paul describes, but Paul is talking about some who would be “having a form of godliness” (v. 5), coming to the “knowledge of the truth” (v. 7), and “reprobate concerning the faith” (v. 8).  So again, he is referring to some in the church whose doctrine and lives are perverted.  This is an apostasy, a falling from the faith, a spiritual cancer in the church and it must certainly be dealt with.  We can undeniably see much of this happening even today.

Paul continues and now switches his focus to the faithful:

“But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions…”  (v. 10-12).  Notice the first thing listed here is doctrine. He goes on:

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (v. 13).

He is about to give Timothy a remedy for the great deception that is coming.

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (v. 14).

The apostle assures the faithful that his doctrine is the truth and that he is trustworthy.

But Catholics will insist that “the things thou hast learned” and “hast been assured of” refers to “Sacred Tradition.”  It is no doubt true that the precise words of Scripture were not the only words that Paul shared with them.  Obviously, he had also shared other things that were not specifically written down in the Word.  So, Catholics will say that Paul had to be referring to tradition.  But the fact that tradition is not specifically mentioned here (while Scripture will be), and what Paul goes on to tell them, clarifies his point.

The Solution

Now, the apostle will mention the cure for surviving these latter day trials and doctrinal problems:

“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” (v. 15).    

Ok, so he specifically lists Scripture as the answer to problems in doctrine and behavior.  Now, many Catholics will say that this passage only refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, and therefore, this (supposedly) refutes the “Bible only” doctrine, since it would actually mean “Old Testament only.”  But this idea is refuted in the next verse:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (v. 16). 

This verse (along with v. 17) is savagely attacked by many non-believers in Sola Scriptura, especially Catholics, and I believe it is because these two verses are so clear, and they don’t like what the text is saying.  Like I said above, most of the attacks are coming from those who claim to be Christians today, and the attack on this passage is a case in point.  But this passage’s detractors don’t want it to be true and will fight tooth and nail in attempting to destroy its clear and simple meaning. 

“Only” Scripture?

Many will claim that the text doesn’t say “ONLY Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” etc., etc., but all Scripture, therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be right.  While the word “only” is not used, a simple assessment of the context will show that the concept is indeed there, as we will soon see.  Just because specific phrases or words are absent, does not negate the idea of a given concept.  Context will determine the intended idea.  So, let’s not be so quick to rule out the concept of “only Scripture” as the ultimate rule of faith.  Keep reading.

The term “by inspiration of God” is rendered “God-breathed” in the Greek.  This would of course denote infallibility in that source.  Note that there is no other rule of faith mentioned in all of Scripture that is given the title “God-breathed.”

This fact alone leans heavily toward the concept of Scripture alone.  But there’s more…

“Merely” Profitable?

But many Catholics try to say that Scripture is only profitable, since it doesn’t use the term “sufficient.”  But why do Catholics focus on the supposed “weakness” of the word “profitable,” yet ignore the power and sufficiency of terms like “inspired” and “thoroughly furnished” (fully equipped) in the same context?  It seems as though there is a double standard here.

But the term “inspired” (or “God-breathed”) in this same passage does not allow for such a low view of the term “profitable.”  It’s like saying that God is “merely good” to us and nothing more.  But no one who is serious about serving God would say this.

As I mentioned above, they will say that all of Scripture was not yet written at the time of Paul’s epistle, so it couldn’t be referring to the New Testament, could it?  But, using that same line of reasoning, does anyone think that Paul really meant “All Scripture written up to this time, but not the rest of it” is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?  Absolutely not. 

That would be like a Catholic saying, “All infallible/ex-cathedra statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  And we could then ask, “Does that mean that ONLY the ones proclaimed UP TO THIS POINT are true and that future ones may be false?”  No, he would argue that “all” means all.  Remember, Paul was not just addressing the needs of the early church, but also those of the future church (v. 1), as well.  So, this argument doesn’t hold.

When Paul said “All Scripture,” he was looking ahead and including everything that God ever intended to be Scripture.  Otherwise, you’d have to say that not all of the New Testament was God-breathed! 

The Complete and Sufficient “Toolbox”

And finally:

“That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (v. 17).

So we see here that Scripture is able to make one perfect (i.e., mature and complete) and throughly [thoroughly] furnished for “all good works.”  Now, remember, starting from v. 10, Paul is focusing heavily on doctrine, and Scripture is the remedy for this great deception.  So, doctrinally speaking, if this book we call the Bible is 1) infallible, 2) able to keep us from deception, and 3) able to equip us for every/all good works, then we need no other infallible source.

To use an analogy, if you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every auto mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, wouldn’t that toolbox be sufficient?  Yes, it would.  Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks?  No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.  Again, this mechanic’s toolbox would suffice.

In the same way, Scripture is our rule of faith, our “toolbox” of doctrine which equips us for every good work.  Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH.  By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.  So the Bible necessarily and effectively eclipses and replaces any other source that claims to be an infallible rule of faith.

No tradition is on the same level as Scripture, unless that tradition is both 1) already part of the Bible and 2) in line with its principles.  For example, Jesus’ mention of the tradition of the Pharisees (Mark 15:1-13) is certainly referred to in the Bible, but it is excluded as an authoritative source because it doesn’t line up with the rest of Scripture.  And any other tradition whose concepts are not in line with the Bible’s are also rejected.

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has never been able to clearly and exactly say what the contents of its tradition are in any meaningful way.  They will give us extremely vague definitions of tradition, or distract people by giving some examples of Sacred Tradition, but they can’t identify the whole of Catholic Tradition with certainty, and the Catholic Church’s weak attempts at doing so are an absolute joke.  See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

Conclusion

There are many who would want to add other “authorities” to the Bible, and even claim they are equal to it.  But it always happens that when something other than Scripture is introduced as an “equal supplement” (like tradition, councils or “magisteriums”), Scripture always gets put on the back burner, and truth takes a serious hit.

We see here in this article only a tiny portion of the writings of one of the greatest apostles who ever lived – a man whom God infallibly used to write one third of the New Testament.  Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this man was used to reveal (and unpack the details of) a most critical doctrine just before he was martyred by an evil and ungodly generation of men.  The apostle Paul gives us the clearest understanding of the concept of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the ultimate and only infallible rule of faith for the church today).  Will the church in this modern day embrace and take advantage of this teaching?  Regretfully, the truth is that many will not, thus hastening the apostasy of which Paul spoke (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Today, more than ever, we need to recognize the power of Scripture as our ultimate source for doctrine and guidance, and to guard against the inevitable deception and false teaching we’re seeing in the modern (and last days) church.  That is the purpose of Sola Scriptura.

 

THE ORIGIN OF TRUTH

 

When Catholics and Protestants engage in debate, there is generally a lot of back and forth (we discuss the Marian doctrines, faith alone, Purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, the priesthood, the papacy, etc., etc.)  But there is a foundational topic that we should probably address first: What is truth?  Where is the truth that carries authority?  How can a Catholic or Protestant know what’s true in these spiritual matters?   

Of course, different levels of truth can come from many sources, some more dependable than others.  We can get some spiritual truth from the early church fathers,  we can get it from church history, or even some secular history sources; we can get truth from eyewitnesses of biblical events, etc.  But in the end, what we are really asking is, “Where can we find the ultimate and infallible source of truth on spiritual matters that neither side can deny?” 

In these spiritual debates, both sides use Scripture as a source of truth (and rightly so).  But Catholics also insist that we need to add “infallible” Sacred Tradition and the “infallible” Catholic Magisterium (which they call “the living, teaching office” of the Church).

But are Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium really infallible sources of truth?  Let me say up front that I believe that there is only ONE infallible source of truth, or rule of faith, for the church today.  And that source is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  If this is indeed true, then Catholic arguments fail and crumble to the ground, because Catholics invest so much in the Magisterium and Tradition.

Misuse of Terms

One of the first things I wish to address is the definition of the phrase “the Church,” used so often by Catholics.  The word “church” comes from the Greek “ecclesia,” which means “called out ones.”  The phrase has only two meanings within the pages of Scripture:

1   1) The faithful members of the universal church, worldwide (in other words, all those who are saved), or

2   2) The faithful members of the local body of believers.

But Catholics have a third (and unbiblical) meaning of the term “the Church,” which they use far, far more often than the biblical meaning.  They use the term to mean the LEADERS (or the Magisterium) of the Catholic Church.  For example, when they say things like, “The Church teaches ABC…” or “The Church believes XYZ,” etc., they mean a Magisterium.  One way that they misuse the term in Scripture is when they quote Matthew 18:17: “…And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church…”  Jesus is not saying to tell it to the Magisterium, He is saying to tell it to the local church body, not just the leaders, but the whole assembly.   And it is the duty of the whole congregation to treat the man as an outsider until he repents.

But, as I said, using the term to mean Magisterium is not biblical.  The term is never used this way in the Bible, so it causes much confusion between Catholics and Protestants and it distorts the idea of authority.  But when used in its intended sense, as stated above, much of the confusion can be avoided. 

I will offer the reader an experiment.  Go through the Catholic Catechism and find the word “church.”  See how many times it is described as the universal church or as the local body, as opposed to a Magisterium.  It may come as a surprise to Catholics that in the great majority of cases, it is used as the latter (i.e., in an unscriptural sense).

How the Church Started

Extravagant claims are made by the Catholic Church about itself and its authority, claiming to be the “one true Church,” i.e., the Church that Jesus Christ founded.  Why do they say this?  They usually break it down and present their argument something like this:

1   1) Jesus Christ established a Church (Matthew 16:18).

2   2) He founded this Church upon Peter (Matthew 16:18).  Peter is the foundation and human head of this Church worldwide.

3   3) Jesus gave Peter primacy over the other apostles by giving him the keys to the kingdom with the power to “bind” and “loose” (Matthew 16:19) when determining doctrine, faith and morals, and to rule over the whole Church.

4   4) This made Peter the first pope.

5   5) This authority extends to all of Peter’s successors (future popes), as well.  This is called Apostolic Succession, and it includes an unbroken, lawful chain of successors throughout history, from Peter to now.

6   6) This authority also includes the gift of infallibility (teaching without error) when the pope makes an official statement or proclamation to the whole church.

7   7) This necessarily established a Magisterium of Church leaders (with the pope as head) who are the ONLY ones who can truly interpret Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which is equal with Scripture).

8   8) This created the “three-legged stool,” consisting of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, faithfully preserving and transmitting this deposit of faith.

9   9) The Catholic Church’s Magisterium has truly, and infallibly, determined the correct list of books of the Bible, thus, giving the Scriptures to the world.

1 10)       The early Church fathers unanimously agreed with this and wrote about it.  Not only that, but Church history confirms all of this.

Logic Leaping and Scripture Twisting

Ok, there are a lot of assumptions and giant unproven leaps of logic here.  Catholics may say that it’s a cumulative argument – that each piece of the puzzle forms a part of the whole picture.  But I would say that if each piece individually can be refuted, then the whole thing collapses.  I will attempt to very briefly address each one now:

1   1) We all agree that Jesus Christ established a church.  No problem there.

2   2) The Church of Jesus Christ is not founded upon any mere man (like Peter).  It is Christ’s church (“Upon this rock I will build MY church” – Matthew 16:18).  And He is the Head of it.  The focus here is on Jesus, not the apostles or disciples.  The rock refers to the truth of the revelation Peter was shown just a couple of verses earlier – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’”(Matthew 16:16).  THAT is what the church of Jesus Christ is built upon.  See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

3   3) Peter was definitely a prominent leader in the early church.  But there is no scriptural reason to believe he had primacy over the other apostles.  As far as the keys to “bind” and “loose,” all the apostles received them (Matthew 18:18-19).  Jesus may have first mentioned that they will be given to Peter, but that doesn’t prove primacy.  The New Testament must be taken as a whole.  It is obvious that Peter, in his day, was never recognized by the other apostles as he is by the modern Catholic Church (Mark 9:33-34).  He had a position of prominence, but not primacy over the others.  Again, all the apostles were given the keys.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

4   4) There is no mention of an office of pope, pontiff, or “vicar of Christ” in this passage.  Actually, there is no such office anywhere in the New Testament, although several other offices are indeed mentioned there.

5   5) There is nothing in Scripture about a “lawful” and “unbroken” chain of successors with infallibility who will obtain “Peter’s office” in the future.  A direct pedigree or lineage was not, and still is not, necessary for the church to function.  Something was definitely handed down to his successors, but that was the teachings he got from Jesus, not a papal position.  See this link on Apostolic Succession:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html 

6   6) Nowhere in the New Testament do we find any post-apostolic teachers or leaders who acquired infallibility. 

7   7) There are leaders in every church today, but it is extremely arrogant for any of them to say that ONLY THEY can correctly interpret for the common people.  See here: 

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

Concerning Sacred Tradition, it cannot be equal with Scripture, nor can it be infallible, since it often contradicts God’s Word.  Furthermore, Catholics cannot even tell us exactly what Tradition is.  I have asked many times, and no Catholic seems to be able to give a meaningful and specific definition of “Sacred Tradition,” much less demonstrate why it is infallible.  All we get is extremely vague descriptions, like, “It is the Living Voice of the Church,” or “The fullness of divine truth proclaimed in the Scriptures, preserved by the apostolic bishops and expressed in the life of the Church…”  In other words, it is whatever the Catholic Church wants it to be!

8   8) There can only be one ULTIMATE source of revelation for today.  It can also be demonstrated that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium often contradict Scripture.

9   9) The Catholic Church did NOT give us the Bible.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

1 10)    Many of the early church fathers had some valuable and useful information, but the idea of a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is inflated and untrue.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/church-fathers.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

Whose Authority?

Ok, what about authority?  Who really has it?  This simply boils down to authority being for the person who is faithful to the Scriptures.  Authority does not belong to a spiritual dictator.  It does not belong to one who flirts with error or false doctrine.  A “common” Christian in the pew can use the authority of Scripture to rebuke a “pastor” who is flippant or careless with God’s Word.  Pastors, deacons and bishops have their role as leaders in the body, but they cannot, and should not, lord it over the people.  As Christians, we are all brothers and sisters (Matthew 23:8), and we all have biblical roles/positions.  But being a pastor or bishop does not automatically give one authority, but rather, responsibility in his God-given role should be emphasized, so he can rightly divide Scripture.  This produces true authority… a “Magisterium” does not.

What Has Proven True?

So where can we find truth?  I hope that we would all agree that the following entities have proven themselves:

God the Father – through mighty miracles, like creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the Jews’ victories over multiple larger armies, miraculously providing manna, the Tabernacle’s cloud and pillar of fire.

Jesus the Son – through His fulfilled prophecies, His many personal miracles, including raising the dead, and by His own resurrection.

The Bible – through the intricate tapestry of its design (God’s fingerprints are all over it), archaeological proofs, and through fulfilled prophecies and ample manuscript evidence.  Furthermore, Jesus recognized it as the Word of God, He pointed others toward it.  He lived it and obeyed it, and used it Himself during His temptation in the wilderness.  Furthermore, we cannot deny the changed lives (for the better) it has caused over the centuries.

THESE ARE TRANSCENDENT SOURCES and God has caused Scripture to prove itself as a source of divine authority.  God is using His Son (the Word) through the written Word, as the last word for the church today (Hebrews 1:1-2).

There is no Tradition of any kind and no Magisterium of any church that matches the Bible in its divine essence.  Scripture is the one infallible source for the church today.  And that, my friend, is the origin of spiritual truth.

 

 

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 2)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

This is the second article in a series on Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”), in which the above passage is most important.  We assert that this passage does indeed support the concept of Sola Scriptura, and we want to address some specific objections to it (mainly from Catholics).

Today’s specific objection is this:

Argument #2 – 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 CANNOT BE SPEAKING OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, BECAUSE JUST TWO VERSES BEFORE THIS (V. 14) WE SEE PAUL ALSO TELLING TIMOTHY TO “CONTINUE IN THE THINGS YOU HAVE LEARNED AND BECOME CONVINCED OF,” WHICH REFERS TO INFALLIBLE SACRED TRADITION.  SO SCRIPTURE IS NOT THE *ONLY* INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH HERE.

Ok, so this argument assumes that there are TWO different infallible sources, or “rules of faith” here, for the church today… namely Scripture AND Tradition.

But first of all, can somebody tell us exactly what it was that Timothy learned?  Anyone?  If this information is supposed to be available to the church today, then what is it exactly, and where can we find it?  Can we know precisely what Timothy was convinced of?  No, none of us were there and Paul never reveals this information.  This was personal, first-hand interaction between Paul and Timothy.  

Catholics may say, “Oh yeah, that was US back then!  Paul is talking about OUR Tradition in 2 Timothy 3:14.”  But that’s just reading a Catholic idea back into the text.  No group can just assume that Paul was speaking of their own brand of “tradition.”   

But perhaps “what Timothy learned” is simply what Paul alluded to in verses 10 and 11 (i.e., Paul’s teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, persecutions and sufferings).  But do Catholics have an infallible record of Paul’s teachings, conduct, persecutions, etc. (other than Scripture)?  No they don’t, so they need to quit putting words in Paul’s mouth and quit pretending that Paul is speaking of Catholic Tradition. 

For the record, Catholicism’s “Sacred Tradition” has an identity crisis all its own.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

    

Second, if the passage is speaking of TWO sources of infallible revelation, then why does Paul only describe Scripture as inspired / “God-breathed”?  And why does he mention only “the sacred writings” (v. 15), but NOT mention “Sacred Tradition” here?  In fact, even if it could be shown that v. 14 is really about some kind of “tradition,” notice that Paul doesn’t mention the idea of anything being INSPIRED until the subject of Scripture comes up.  Catholics are assuming (and insisting on) a second infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic church, but without just cause in this context.  So this is wishful thinking on their part, and pure eisegesis (i.e., reading whatever you want into the text).

Third, Catholics are assuming that the things Timothy learned here are unwritten.  One may even be able to make a case in saying that “the things you have learned” (v. 14) might actually be referring to Scripture itself, instead of some unidentified “tradition.”   It would actually seem to flow right into verse 15.  So, it could be possible and acceptable to interpret verse 14 in this way.  We’re not saying that this has to be the case – just that it’s a possibility.  But, in spite of what Catholics say, what Paul was speaking of doesn’t HAVE TO BE “Catholic Tradition.”

Fourth, we know that “the things you have learned” in verse 14 would never contradict the Scriptures.  However, the “Tradition” that the Catholic Church embraces CANNOT be the same thing that Paul was speaking of, since the Catholic Church’s Tradition contains a number of teachings that either contradict, or are foreign to, Scripture.  

So, in conclusion, we can see the weakness of this Catholic argument.  The phrase “the things which you have learned” does NOT refer to some infallible Catholic Tradition.  Catholics are just trying to hi-jack this phrase for their own purposes by trying to read the Catholic Church’s own (supposed) “infallibility” into the text.

It is obvious that the FOCUS of this passage is on Scripture.  And Scripture, as a Rule of Faith, does not need some “equal” or “infallible” supplement. 

WHAT ABOUT TRADITION?

The Bible tells us of only one inspired (God-breathed) and absolutely trustworthy source of information for the church today. Only this source can infallibly (without error) supply us with doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And this source is Scripture, itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It equips us for every good work. As our ultimate rule of faith, it is more than sufficient. It is God, Himself, speaking to us (Matthew 22:31-32).

However, Catholics have another source, or rule of faith, along with, and supposedly EQUAL TO, the Scriptures. According to the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal…Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit…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.'" (CCC #80, #81, #82)

So we see that in Catholicism, “Sacred Tradition” is on the same level as the Bible. Therefore, according to the Catholic Church, Tradition must also be infallible, since both it and Scripture are to be honored with the SAME level of “devotion and reverence.”


The Big Question

But how does the Catholic Church define tradition? They speak of small “t” traditions, which are only “disciplines,” like not eating meat on Friday, or observing certain holy days, etc. These can be changed by the Church, if they so desire. But they also have big “T” Traditions, which are the main and binding teachings (doctrines) that allegedly cannot be changed.

But, what about an actual, meaningful definition of Tradition from the Catholic Church? What is it, precisely? What does it consist of? And where can we actually find all of it? Some Catholics will say that Tradition is the “living and growing truth.” Or it is the “common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church.” Still, others say that it is the “sense of the faithful.” The Second Vatican Council says that tradition is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes.” (Dei Verbum, 8, 1) Or, maybe it is what former Pope Pius IX arrogantly proclaimed: “I AM TRADITION!” In light of these extremely vague definitions, it seems that Tradition can become anything that the Catholic Church wants it to be. The Catholic concept of Tradition is so broad and so vague that it seems to be a subjective assortment of teachings, practices, historical events, and interpretations of fathers, along with an unknown number of doctrinal "developments.” But, what are the parameters of such a rule of faith? How does one know if he goes beyond the borders of Tradition? And how can the Catholic Church answer these questions without using circular reasoning?

So again, we must ask, “What is it?” Is there an official, unchanging, “infallible” list of Catholic Traditions that we can turn to, so that we can know for sure? No, there isn’t. Interestingly, the Catholic Church claims that only she can authentically interpret this Tradition (CCC #100). Suspiciously convenient, isn't it? But this is simply circular reasoning…like saying, ”It is true, because we SAY so.” In this way, the Catholic Church can force new (and false) doctrines onto the people at will. So, it is just too dangerous to ascribe infallibility to something so vague, so unclear.


Tradition in the Bible

But, tradition (Greek, “paradosis”), according to Scripture, is simply the biblical principles and teachings that were handed down from the apostles to each successive generation. The Bible does use the word in a positive way, but more often in the negative sense. There is good tradition (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:6), and there is bad tradition (e.g., Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18). Acceptable tradition is linked with the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Traditions that are acceptable will either be in the Bible, or they will line up with the principles of the Bible; and those that don’t, should be rejected.


The “Oral” and the “Written”

There is a popular response from Catholics who try to defend their Tradition’s “equality” with Scripture. They contend that we don’t have ALL of God’s Word unless we have the “written” (Scripture), and the “oral” (Sacred Tradition), and they quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the Thessalonians:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter from us."

Catholics often use this verse in an attempt to show a distinction or a difference between “infallible oral" teachings and "infallible written" teachings, insisting that they are EQUAL and we need BOTH today. According to them, the Bible is not enough as a rule of faith.

First of all, Paul's "distinction" here was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but rather, to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms. Here, Paul was addressing the fact that someone (an imposter) had apparently written a letter in Paul’s name to the Thessalonians, saying that they missed the Day of the Lord (2:2), causing the Thessalonian church to be shaken and disturbed. He is now writing to correct that false letter and to bring comfort and strength to the church. So, Paul was basically telling them, "Why are you disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from me? Any true letter from me will agree with the message I already gave to you personally / orally. I wouldn't contradict that message, or give you two different gospels."

So, when Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in this way, it is out of context and they are misusing and abusing this verse. It is NOT AT ALL saying that we need two infallible sources today. There is no need for an “infallible” Tradition to supplement the Bible.

Secondly, the Catholic Church claims to have this Tradition (that is supposedly different from Scripture) which Paul said to hold on to. Yet, what infallible information do we have from Paul that is not found in the Scriptures? None. Does the Catholic Church have any infallible statements from Jesus (or any of the apostles), apart from the Bible? No, they don’t. Then why do they claim to have this extrabiblical (i.e., outside of the Bible) Tradition that they say Paul is speaking of, if they can’t tell us what it is? Remember, we don’t have access today to all of the information that Paul taught them.

It is not that God was unable to infallibly preserve all this information, it's just that He chose not to. There may even be other writings that Paul sent them that we don't have access to today. But we don't NEED to know every single thing he told them. We can know the essence of what he taught them by looking to God-breathed Scripture, which we do have available to us. But we can be sure that the things that Paul wrote to them will not contradict the things he spoke to them. This is his whole point. They would be the same basic message, the same Gospel.


The Test

But this Catholic argument just begs the question. It's easy to say, "Oh, yeah, that was us back then and that was our tradition, and that was the same church as ours, back in Jesus’ day", etc. It's easy to claim a traditional "link" to the past, but it's another thing to prove the legitimacy of that "link"… especially when it contains teachings that contradict Scripture.

If Catholics want to claim that Paul was speaking of infallible Tradition as something different from Scripture, then they have the responsibility to do three things:

1) Identify exactly what that "Tradition" is,
2) Demonstrate that it is indeed DIFFERENT from Scripture, and
3) Demonstrate that it is Apostolic and infallible...

And she must do this WITHOUT CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But we don’t see this type of proof from the Catholic Church. In fact, we don't see anything near "extraordinary proof." Remember, any message today claiming to be "Apostolic Tradition" must line up with, and be tested by, Scripture (Mark 7:1-13).

History has shown us that when anything is considered “equal” to Scripture, it will eventually, and inevitably, override Scripture and produce unbiblical doctrines (like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory, indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, etc.). Catholic Tradition supposedly complements the Bible, but has actually steered multitudes away from the pure truth of the Scriptures… perhaps gradually, yet surely.

Long ago, the Lord Jesus Christ showed us that the Pharisees and the scribes were guilty of usurping the authority of Scripture with their own traditions (Matthew 15:1-9). The Catholic Church is guilty of that same error today.