Sola Scriptura Versus Sacred Tradition
by Gabriel

Sola Scriptura, (literally, "solely scriptures"), is the doctrine that states that the Bible is the sole authority for the Christian. This doctrine is held by numerous Protestant sects, and was one of the two trademarks of Luther and the Reformers (the other being sola fide, faith alone). Protestants holding to this view will look to the Bible alone to form their theology and beliefs. They claim to disregard Tradition as well as the significance of the Church.

Sacred Tradition is the Catholic view of Christian authority. It states that there are three main types of authority, all of them are Tradition (with a capital "t"). The first is divine Tradition, which is the Old Testament, text given to us directly by God the Father. The second is apostolic Tradition, the New Testament which, through the Holy Spirit was recorded by the followers of Christ. Apostolic Tradition also includes unwritten truth passed down by the apostles of Christ by word of Mouth or non-Biblical documentation. The third is ecclesiastical Tradition, truth embodied in the Church's magisterium, the Vatican (the Pope, Bishops, etc.). It was through ecclesiastical Tradition that the Bible was put together as a whole. The importance of the recognization of Sacred Tradition is wonderfully recorded in the Catholic Catechism, section 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 reverance."

The two items of Sacred Tradition not accepted by Protestants as absolute truth are the unwritten apostolic traditions and the supposedly infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Defense

Those who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura will most likely use three verses to defend their belief: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, John 20:31, and, to oppose the Catholic position, Matthew 15:1-11. Some Protestants might also cite Revelation 22:18-19, but this passage will be discussed only briefly here.

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 complete, thouroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Protestants often claim that the above passage defends their doctrine of sola scriptura. But, in all truth, this is a ridiculous claim. As Karl Keating notes, "To say that all inspired writing "is profitable" is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else." (Catholicism and Fundamentalsim, p. 135). The passage, no matter how much Protestants desire it to, does not say that Scripture alone is sufficient for forming doctrine. The best it does is to say that Scripture is "profitable" for forming doctrine, and the Catholic Church has held this as true since its very beginning.

So much has been written down, that you may learn to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so believing find life through His name. (John 20:31)

It still baffles me that Protestants tend to bring up this verse in order to reinforce their belief in Sola Scriptura. Robert Sungenis notes: "A person may come to salvation by reading merely one passage of Scripture that happens to touch his heart, but it would be absurd to conclude that this is all God wants him to have. In order to build on and maintain his salvation, avoiding sin and the harsh realities of life, he must know much more than just to believe in Jesus." (Not By Scripture Alone, p. 218). If a Protestant conjures up this verse to reconcile his belief in Sola Scriptura, kindly tell him that while this verse may imply that the Scriptures are enough to bring a person to salvation, it in no way implies, indirectly or directly, that the Scriptures are enough to form doctrine.

In a (futile?) attempt to refute the Catholic position on Tradtion, Protestants will appeal to Bible verses (one in particular) that condemn the "traditions of men." The primary passage that they refer to is Matthew 15:1-11. This passage is the story of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for following the traditional laws set forth by former rabbis. Some Protestants say that Jesus, in essence, is rebuking tradition, so that the only authority in Christianity is the Bible. Many of these Protestants do not look at, or misinterpret, verse 9:

<9> And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

This verse is the words of Jesus Christ, quoting Old Testament Scripture (Isaiah 29:13). As you can see, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of teaching commandments of men as lessons from God. They do not realize the difference. That means that there are commandments of God in Tradition, and it can be assuredly declared that this verse does not, in any way, condemn these Godly Traditions. Rather, it implicitly deposes that there are authoritative Traditions. It only condemns traditions of men, such as the ancient Jewish laws and regulations, which are not necessary in Christianity and often lead to distorting God's teachings.

Some Protestants will also cite Revelation 22:18-19, which commands mankind not to add anything or take anything away from "the book." (Many Protestants interpret 'the book' to be the entire Bible, while other interpret it to mean only the book of Revelation.) They will claim that by honoring Tradition and the Church, we are adding to the Bible, which is specifically condmned. But this is far from the truth. Catholics accept the Bible as inspired revelation, and nothing else. While we may honor other sources as authoritative, such as the Church and Tradition, we have added nothing to the Bible.

So Where's it Come From?

The fact is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura can be found nowhere in the Bible. The Bible neither implicitly nor explicitly claims to be the sole authority of the Christian. So where did this idea even originate? Why do so many people believe in it? During the reformation, Luther and the Reformers had to deny the infallible authority of the Catholic Church in order to view themselves as orthodox. But they had to have some form of authority to be obligated to follow. They could not turn to Tradition, because Tradition is Catholic. Plus, Tradition condemns the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide as well as Sola Scriptura. With the authority of the Catholic Church and of Tradition out of the question, where could the Reformers turn? Only to the Bible. And so, even today's Protestant, in denying the Catholic Church and (Catholic) Tradition, are forced to look to the Bible as their sole authority, despite the fact that the Bible never claims to be such a thing. So the tables turn, and one can actually say that Protestants follow "the traditions of men", those set forth by Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers.

What is private interpretation? Basically, private interpretation can be defined as a person’s personal interpretation of a verse or passage in the Bible. Who believes that private interpretation is always acceptable? Almost all Protestant denominations. Why? Because they believe in Sola Scriptura. Because those who believe in Sola Scriptura cannot believe that there is an infallible source other than the Bible, they cannot say that there is an infallible interpreter outside of the Bible. And so they have no choice but to leave the interpretation of the Bible in the hands of every individual.

Another obvious consequence of private interpretation is simply that it allows heresy to creep in to Christianity. Many people (Oneness Pentecostals, for instance) believe in the heresy of modalism (that God is one God and one person), simply because that is the way they interpret the Bible to describe God. And when Protestant denominations like Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses become existent because of their own strange interpretations of the Bible, the rest of the Protestants ironically condemn them. It is evident that some people need help or guidance interpreting the Bible. Private interpretation encourages the dismissal of that needed help. In fact, in the worst case scenario, private interpretation can lead to relativism, a clearly heretical and unorthodox belief constantly condemned in the Bible.

The Bible warns against Private Interpretation. Peter outright condemns it.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The above passage makes it clear that the Bible, at least partially, is not up for anyone's simple, private interpretation. On the contrary, at times, Scripture can be hard to understand or unclear on certain issues.

2 Peter 3:15-16
[Speaking of Paul's writings] 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.

If Peter himself, prime apostle of Christ, admitted that certain parts of Paul's writings were hard to understand, than we would be only prideful and ignorant to say that we can rightfully interpret them. Indeed, we, as mere fallible humans, need guidance in interpreting Scripture. Even Philip, who lived at the time of Christ and undoubtedly had more knowledge of the day than we do, had trouble interpreting the Scriptures.

Acts 8:30-31
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, "Understandest thou what thou readest?" And he said, "How can I, except some man should guide me?" And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

As Philip admits that he cannot interpret the meaning of the Scriptures, so whould we. We must realize our fallibility, and admit the fact that we could be wrong. Peter tells us how confusing the Scriptures can be. Philip needed a guide himself. And we are warned directly against private interpretation. Acknowledging these three vital texts, we must conclude that to accurately interpret Scripture, a God-given guide is needed.

Apostolic Tradition

The Bible does indeed make references to following Tradition. Let's look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

<15>Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

This verse is rather self-explanatory. It tells us to hold to the traditions which we are taught by God and almost definitely by the early church and the apostles. It also points out that traditions can be handed down by word, and therefore might not be written in the Bible. We are to "hold to" these types of traditions as well. Let's also take a look at 1 Corinthians 11:23:

<23> For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread.

This verse shows that early Christians relied upon word of mouth to find certain truths. The first part of the verse "received from the Lord" shows that these oral traditions were indeed Godly and Christian. It is true, though, that it does nothing to prove that we still need tradition today. But perhaps 2 Timothy 2:2 does:

<2>The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

First of all, we must face the fact that Paul did not write everything he taught down. There were certain events that simply were not recorded in the New Testament. For instance, take a look at John 21:25:

<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.

We find explicitly in the Bible that rather than writing, the leaders of the Church would come and speak with the Church face to face. And so, in reality, we cannot assume that everything that we should know is in the Bible. 2 John 1:12 reads as follows:

<12> Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

The Canon

Protestants tend to put so much emphasis on the authority of the Bible, and yet they disregard its origins. The Bible does not name the canon. There is no list included in the Scriptures that tell us which books are to be included in the Bible. How do we know that Philemon is inspired? How do we know that the Gospel of Peter is not? How do we know that we have an infallibly compiled New Testament?

The truth is, the only method by which we can be sure of the Bible's infallible canon is through the infallibility of the Catholic Church. Until the end of the 4th century, the early Church had no canon-- they had no organized New Testament. This early Church had not established a canon. Some agrred that certain books were inspired, while a large amount disagreed about those same books. The Church, at this time, had no way of knowing which books were inspired and which were not. Finally, in the late 4th century, the Council of Rome, a council of the Catholic Church, decided upon the Canon of the New Testament. Today, all orthodox Christians use that same New Testament. But the fact is that nobody has any proof that our current New Testament is infallibly compiled unless they trust in the infallibility of the Council of Rome, and hence, the infallibility of the Catholic Church. Unless you believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, you have no way of knowing about the infallibility of your own Bible! Therefore, in reality, every time a Christian reads his New Testament, he is affirming and reinforcing the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Ecclesiastical Tradition

John 21:15-17 reads as follows:

<15> So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?"
He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."
He said to him, "Feed My Lambs."
<16> He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?"
He said to Him, "Yes Lord; You know that I love You."
He said to him, "Tend My sheep."
<17> He said to him a third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" Peter was grieved the third time because He had said to him the third time, "Do you love me?"
And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You."
Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep."

Here, Christ confers the jurisdiction over His own sheep to Peter. It has been argued by some that the sheep he refers to are a mere portion of the entire flock, resulting in Peter playing the role of a priest, and not a universal pontiff. This argument cannot be sustained in light of parallel passages like John 10:16: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will here my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepard." One flock, one shepard. Christ confers not a single fold of his sheep to the government of Peter, but His entire flock; his one flock, with the one shepard being Peter. Hence, Peter (and his successors) governs the whole Church in a very special way, and is clearly authoritative. 

It's somewhat amusing to discuss the importance of the Church with a Protestant. Ask the Protestant what his authority is in Christianity. He will say that it is the Bible, and the Bible alone. Then ask, "so what, in your opinion, is the pillar and foundation of the Truth?" Almost every time, the Protestant will respond, "the Bible." Then, calmly, read to him 1 Timothy 3:15: "...the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth." After smiling at his surprise, ask a second question: "So... would you say that the Church is without error?" The Protestant will shake his head, probably disgusted with such a claim, and immediately respond with a definitive "no." Patiently read to him Ephesians 5:27: "so that when He took the Church to Himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless." This is bound to throw doubt on his initial beliefs about the Church. Proceed by reading a few of the innumerable verses concerning the perfect unity of the Church.

A main passage claiming that power is given specifically to Christ's Church's Magisterium is Matthew 16:15-19, which reads as follows:

<15> He [Christ] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
<16> Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God."
<17> Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven. <18>And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. <19> And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."

Upon whom is the Church built? It is built upon Peter (in greek, Petros, meaning rock. In aramaic, Kepha, meaning rock. cf. John 1:42), the rock. Hence, Peter is once again said to have a true authority over the Church of Christ. Furthermore, that same Peter, the rock upon which the Church is built, was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, which formerly belonged to Christ, with which he was given the impressive authority to "bind on earth what is bound in heaven and loose on earth what is loosed in heaven." Anyway this passage is read, it must be admitted that Peter, the rock upon which the Church was built, was given tremendous authority over God's people; over us.

It cannot be doubted that in the Bible, Sola Scriptura is nowhere taught. In the same way, explicit authority is given to both Sacred Tradition as well as the Church. Conclusively, the authority of Tradition and of the Church cannot be effectively attacked. It is indeed true that the gates of Hades shall never prevail against the Church. "Rome has spoken, the case is closed." (St. Augustine)