DeoOmnisGloria.com

The Old Testament scriptures thoroughly furnished man of that day unto all good works, and Christ continually referenced it to prove truths. Jesus and others read and quoted Scripture (never any oral tradition, except to condemn it). That's not an insignificant point. And when Satan tested Jesus, Christ made reference to the Authority of scripture to prove his error.

Matthew 4:3-4

"And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
What proceeds out of the mouth of God is God's Word, and His Holy Word is written in the Bible. That is what man lives by. The Word of God, not the words of men, no matter how faithful they may appear. Jesus could have answered 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 pointed to what was already written in the scriptures as the reply to the adversary. I.e., that was the perfect answer! What God had inspired to be written, not the oral tradition of the day, but what had proceedeth from God's mouth and written in His Word. And this deferral to what was written in the scriptures is a lesson for all faithful Christians of what Authority we go to in order to prove truths. And Christ did this not only in answering un-biblical assertions, but also when presented with scripture that were taken out of context.
As a Catholic I fully believe that Scripture is the Word of God, yet "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:14,17). Jesus came into this world to lead us into the fullness of Truth, to conquer sin and death, and to establish His Church. Jesus did refer to Scripture often yet He did teach doctrines that were totally new and foreign to the Jewish people. He established Baptism as the necessary act of faith (John 3:1-5), insisted that His Body and Blood would be eaten by those who would have eternal life (John 6:47-58), He established the Church giving the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven to men He had chosen (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18), and then He took it a step further and gave them the ability to forgive sins (John 20:23). In coming to this earth, Jesus did not make a "book" authoritative absolutely, He never said to His followers, "now go and write everything down and live only by that book". That would explain why the Apostles never compiled a book that contained all the books of the Bible as we know it today. What Jesus established, they built upon. Jesus never said, "You no longer need circumcision, yet Paul insisted, rightfully, that circumcision was no longer relevant. Paul is establishing a new tradition, one that was highly disputed even in Scripture (read Acts). The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Jesus again defers to "other" scripture which qualified the scripture in question. For example;

Matthew 4:5-11

Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple,

and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
In other words, Jesus replies to scripture taken out of context with an additional scripture which clarifies (not denies) it. So we see the meaning is that, "Yes, God will watch over us, but that doesn't mean that we can test/tempt the Lord God!" The Authority of Scripture clearly delineated by our Lord, even in the face of other scriptures. The Perfect answer by Christ to combat a erroneous understanding of scripture was to quote additional Scripture to shed more light on it's true meaning! I.e., it was authoritative over what man might read and think was right by considering just one passage. Another passage qualified or explains more about the first. in this we bring reconciliation to both truths of these scriptures, denying neither.

I completely agree that Scripture lays the foundation of truth. Just look at the Blessed Trinity. No where in Scripture is the doctrine of the Trinity defined. Jesus states that the Father and He are One, but no where do we find Jesus explaining this common belief of Christianity. We never mention of the fact that the Trinity consists of three Divine Persons, that share one Divine Nature. Yet the Catholic Church reached this conclusion and clearly articulated this doctrine. I likewise agree that the overriding message of Scripture is "authoritative over what man might read and think was right by considering just one passage". Protestants for centuries have insisted on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and Sola Fides (Faith Alone). There is no biblical support for either of these heretical doctrines. Martin Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, he admitted as much. Yet this is the perfect example of a "man" taking one verse from the Bible and completely contradicting the entire New Testament. John 3:16-21, Romans 3:27-31, 6:1-4, 15-18, James 2:17-26 all testify to the fact that it is by faith and works that we are saved. In reference to Sola Scriptura I have already made multiple references to disprove this belief.

Matthew 4:8

"Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."
Again, Jesus presents scripture, God's Word, to counter Satan's ideas and visions. He says, It is Written! In other words, God says thus and thus! Never, God's Priests say, our leaders say, or oral tradition says! Jesus, our example, says, it is written! This is our example and the posture to take with anyone in order to try the Spirits to see whether they be of God. Compare their words to God's Word, countering their tradition with the authority of God's Word! The same can be said about any debate of doctrines by the Church. The correct principle in faithful Hermeneutics is to always defer to scripture, not to religious leaders or heads of the Church. Just as Jesus demonstrated in His debates with the religious leaders of His day, He appealed to the Scriptures, not to Congregational leaders, traditions or any Ecclesiastical body.

First, the One debating with Satan was Almighty God, of course He didn't have to defer to anyone else. He is the foundation of Truth and the One who established the Church.
Second, in this discussion I have continually used Sacred Scripture to show that Christ founded a Church and gave that Church authority on earth and in heaven. I have yet to see an argument from any Protestant supporting the opposite.

Matthew 21:42

"Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!"
Where was it written? The Scriptures, the Authority which furnished them unto all good works whereby they should have searched and known of Christ. Likewise, the New Testament logically follows that same principle of thoroughly furnishing us unto all Good works. We should understand that once completed, the New Testament scriptures (like the old was) is the guidebook of truth. It (old and new together) is a completed work, not a work or book in progress, or a incomplete work. We can't add to it or take away from it by oral tradition. The Bible is now one cohesive whole, complete thoroughly furnishing us. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of faithfully following God's word above all other, and it is built upon solid ground.

This argument proves that the Church has been given divine authority on this earth. Though not willing to accept the Catholic Church as authoritative you are willing to accept the very book that the Catholic Church compiled. As I have stated elsewhere on this blog, what guarantee do you have that the Bible contains books and letters that were divinely inspired. There were many other books and letters that were reviewed by the Catholic Church at that time, like the Gospel of Thomas. They were rejected due to doctrinal issues within them and lack of validity that the Apostles and/or immediate followers wrote them. So ultimately, you accept the Church's authority to compile the Bible but refuse to accept it beyond that. How is it possible for a "fallible Church" to authoritatively define and compile the Bible? Wouldn't infallibility be an absolute necessity for this to happen? The answer is yes, and the proof is found in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:15).

There are some Roman Catholic church apologists that say that this doctrine was not even heard of until "the reformation" of the 16th century. This of course is an inaccurate and self serving claim, which can be proven false quite easily (even apart from scripture). 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, the doctrine of ultimate authority of the scriptures? The Author is Saint 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 I've read. And so we see this Roman catholic argument fails on both fronts. On both Biblical and Historical grounds, it fails miserably. The Word of God both is, and was the Supreme authority of the Church. The Apostles and all the faithful fathers deferred to it. it's not some new thing which Protestants invented.

I will likewise appeal to St. Augustine....

"In the Catholic Church, not to speak of that purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, in such a way that, in its least part only, for they are but men, they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds its greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing, - not to speak, I say, of that wisdom which you do not believe is present in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which, most properly, can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here.
If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what would you answer him when he says: "I do not believe"? Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." - Taken from Against the Letter of Mani called "The Foundation", 397 A.D.
Do you really want to attempt to use Catholic bishops against the Catholic Church? We see that St. Augustine, a bishop of the Catholic Church, is quite clear on where authority lies.

Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?
Can the Scriptures contradict what some allege is oral "apostolic tradition", and have that tradition still be of God? The answer of course is a resounding, No! God is not the Author of confusion. The undeniable fact is, two infallible God-breathed sources cannot contradict each other. Else one of them is not infallible! That's a fact! Yet God's Scripture and Roman Church traditions constantly contradict each other. This should alert any faithful student of Holy Canon that one is neither infallible, nor of God. Just a few of the myriad of examples..
To answer the above question I will ask a question - Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole source of authority? The answer of course is that it doesn't. The Bible points directly to apostolic tradition (and succession for that matter). In Acts we find multiple "apostolic tradition" being put in place things that Jesus, the Word of God, never command. Please keep in mind that the book of Acts was written after the fact, so this book didn't exist before the events occurred. So where did the apostles read that they should appoint deacons(Acts 6:1-7)? Where did the apostles read that all Christians should sell their property and lay the money at the apostles' feet to distribute at will (Acts 4:34-37)? Where did the apostles read that circumcision was no longer necessary (Acts 15:1-11)? All of these were apostolic traditions. So what is the basis of your argument here?

The scriptures of God teach that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4,20), and all sin is purged and we are purified in Christ, on the cross. While Roman Catholic traditions teach that sin can be purged later, in a place called Purgatory (place of purifying).
I'll begin by quoting our friend St. Augustine again, this time from the City of God:

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before that last and strictest judgement. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment.

- from St. Augustine's City of God written between the years 413 to 426 A.D.

And again,
That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, - through a certain purgatorial fire.
- from St. Augustine's The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love written in 421 A.D.

But let us return to Scripture as well. 1 Corinthians 3:15 and Luke 12:57-59 both point to the possibility of Purgatory. Scripture never says definitively that no such state exists, rather Scripture supports it.

The Scriptures of God teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1) but Roman tradition says they are different offices.

This is not true. A bishop is a priest, but not all priests are bishops only those selected by the Pope, the successor of Peter. Peter picked the first successor to the Apostles when he ordered the selecting of one among them to fill Judas' seat in Acts 1.

The Scriptures of God 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.

The Catholic Church likewise teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all, yet that Divine Sacrifce is an eternal Sacrifice as indicated in the Book of Revelations (5:6). At Mass, Catholic enter into that Mystery, we do not believe that Jesus is sacrificed again and again. You will not find one doctrine that teaches that.

The Scriptures of God teaches that we should not use vain repetitions in prayers (Matthew 6:7) thinking that we will be heard for our much speaking, while the Roman catholic traditions teach repeating hail Mary's in prayer as penitence, as if God indeed will hear us for our much repetition.

Again, you misintrepret the Scripture. Matthew 6:7 is referring to the pagan style of prayer that was popular in Jesus' day. They didn't know who to pray to so they rattled on hoping to pray to at least some "true" god. In giving us the "Our Father" (Matt 6:9-15), Jesus Himself gave us a prayer He intended us to repeat over and over again. If your intrepretation were correct this would be a direct contradiction. On another note, the "Hail Mary" is a biblical prayer, the entire first half of the prayer is taken straight from Scripture, the second half simply asks her to pray for us. I have yet to find a Scripture passage that says we are not allowed to ask others to pray for us.

The Scriptures of God teach 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.

It was the angel Gabriel who stated this first when he proclaimed to Mary, "Hail, full of grace"(Luke 1:28). It is both physically and spiritually impossible for a person to be full of grace if they have sin on their soul. Also, it would physically have to be, since Jesus would take His flesh from His Mother.

The Holy scriptures 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, dealt out by their Church.

The priesthood is not something dealt out. Any man who desires to follow Christ's call to priestly ministry can follow that path. Second, Saints are Christians who have led lives in true imitation of Christ. Their lives testify to their sanctity. We are all called to be saints.

The Scriptures of God says 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.

Exodus 20:4-5 states graven images not statues and there is a distinct difference. A graven image is something material that is worshipped, God is condemning idol worship. Catholics do not worship statues. They serve as a reminder of those individuals. We treasure statues and paintings as any normal person would treasure pictures of family. When Catholics kneel before a statue, they are not worshipping the statue, rather they are praying. Kneeling is a common posture for prayer. We ask the saints and the angel to intercede for us and to help us, but we do not worship them. Big difference!

The scriptures of God says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but Roman Catholic tradition claims Mary is co-mediator with Christ.

Mary is the Mother of God, therefore she is fundamentally necessary in salvation history. If Mary had not said "yes", what would have happened? Would the angel Gabriel have simply flown over to the next house? No, God chose Mary to bear the Son of God, so literally our salvation, Jesus Christ, chose to come to us through Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary nor believe in any way, shape or form that Mary is equal to Jesus, rather we acknowledge the reality of who she is and the role she plays in the history of our salvation.

The Scriptures of God says that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church rests, the foundation stone, and the Head of the Church (Luke 6:48, 1st Peter 2:7-8, Matthew 16:18), But Roman Catholic tradition claims that the foundation Rock of the Church is Pope Peter, and that the pontiff is the head of the Church, an aberration which in effect makes God's Church, a two headed Church!

I've spoken enough about this point, read the Bible and the Early Church Fathers, both support the Catholic teaching.

The Scriptures of God says 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.

You must be joking. The Catholic Church has always proclaimed the gift of eternal life that God offers to all, yet, in accordance with Sacred Scripture we hold that this great gift can be lost if one is unfaithful (Philippians 2:14-17, 3:12-16).

The Reformers understood clearly that the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ to the Pharisees, applied equally to those of their day:

"..thus you have made the commandment of God of non effect by your traditions!" -Matthew 15:6
Comparing these traditions with God's Word, sadly we also understand that this practice of unrighteousness continues today. You simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other and both be an infallible teachings of God. It's Confusion! Any Oral traditions passed upon the church is subject to the written Word of God, as it has always been. As it was for the Scribes and Pharisees. To deny this is tortuous of scripture!

Amen brother! Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides have been tested by the Word of God and found wanting and a direct contradiction, while the truths of Catholic doctrine that have been handed down through the ages remain in perfect accordance with Sacred Scripture.

Moreover, if there was 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 the Mountain, or either the scriptures. True Christians (under God's direction), realize the danger of Church tradition becoming corrupted by fallible men (as had been the case with the Pharisees, and throughout history), and so faithfulness required and requires a scriptural basis. Christians led by the Spirit of God, understood the need for a Final authoritative checkpoint to which every person must be subject to God. Thus the importance of maintaining God's authoritative Word became of very great concern to them, even as it had previously with the Scribes maintaining the Old Testament books. If we were to totally ignore the facts of history that there was no Roman Church nor Pope making the claims he now does during the first three or four centuries (as the foremost Church historians overwhelmingly attest) and were to wrongly assume there was such a Church headed by an infallible pope as the Roman Church does, then this could not even begin to explain the importance they placed on maintaining the texts of the New Testament. For indeed there would have been no need to maintain them at all. One would only need to consult the infallible Pope, who, being under God's guidance would know the truth more certainly and accurately than the Apostle's written word. In 2nd Peter 1:19, where Peter said, "we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it", that would be worthless!!

So what was the checkpoint for the Bible since it was compiled by "fallible men"? Yet oral tradition is not contradicted by the Bible it is supported as I have stated above (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

But of course, true Christians do realize that doctrine and oral tradition are indeed subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation and "therefore" 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 try (test) the Spirits to know whether they be of God or not (1st John 4:1). How would we do this without the Authority of scripture? Tradition which proclaims what is non-scriptural cannot have absolute Authority; It may have the Authority of age, antiquity or large consent, but it does not have ultimate compulsion or necessity! In short, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any church, any tradition, or any pope or minister is equal to Scripture! Therefore, scripture is the Final authority to try the spirits with.

The more you continue to elaborate on this, the more you illustrate how ignorance of Scripture leads to greater error. Scripture points to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and to the authority of Peter and the Apostles (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). Please show me one verse in the entire Bible that makes the claim that it is Sacred Scripture that is the final and sole authority. Your very claim is unbiblical.

Can Tradition be on a Par with God's Word?
Since the Bible "is" the Word of God (as even Roman Catholics whole heartily agree), then it's only rational and logical to profess that any other authority, cannot either contradict it, nor be on a par with it, nor be above it. I.e., there is no Authority higher than God. For who's Word supersedes God's? And no word is on a par with it. For who's word is as good as God's? Therefore, again logically and rationally speaking, in order for someone's word to be on a par with God's Word, the one speaking it would have to be God, or at the very least equal to God, or have God speak in a voice to him. The Only other alternative is to be "quoting" God from His Word! Neither the Pope, a Priest, nor anyone else is equal to God to have his word be on a par with God's Word, nor is God speaking to anyone from the smoke on the mountain today, or creating new oral scripture from a burning bush. The Bible is Complete, not incomplete. It needs no additions.

The Bible was compiled by the Church, pure and simple. Jesus didn't compile the Bible while on earth, nor did He ever command that it be done. Again, Matthew 16 contradicts all that you state here. You realize that you are carrying on about the same thing over and over again. Why such a lengthy argument without any other proofs? Thank goodness this isn't a prayer, for you may be guilty of vain repetition....
Only kidding ;-)

This of course is the tangled web in which the Roman Church finds itself by placing tradition on a par with God's Word. For unless something is God's Word, then it cannot be equal to God's Word. And simply saying God gave it is not sufficient for anyone to claim tradition is the Word, just as it wouldn't be for the traditions that the Pharisees held and Jesus condemned saying they made the Word of God of non effect.

The Catholic Church is in accord with Sacred Scripture here not stuck in some tangled web. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is the downfall of your entire argument here.

True, God breathed His Word through the apostles and placed it in the form of the "Word of God" just as He did Old Testament scripture. But unless God is continuing to write his book (the scriptures) through the Roman Church, then that giving of the law through those who penned scripture 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 tradition he (supposedly) receives of God and place it on the pages of the Bible, as it is the Word of God! If tradition was on a par with God's Word, then it would be God's Word. In fact, then there would "again" be no oral tradition, as it would join written ordinances! Again, the tangled web that is woven by this un-biblical dogma.

Still wrong....Sola Scriptura is the un-biblical doctrine. God sent the Holy Spirit to safeguard and guide the Church (John 16:12-15).

More than that, tradition can become corrupt in the congregation of God (even as it certainly had with the Pharisees in Jesus' day -mark 7:9), and so common sense dictates that it simply cannot and must not be trusted as the ultimate authority, as the Word of God is. It is the words and doctrines of men, often unjustifiable in scripture, and contradictory to it. Not surprisingly, scripture bears out the truth that any tradition or ordinance must be subordinate to the Word. Jesus made it quite clear that we simply cannot hold to any traditions which are not subordinate to scripture, and that teaching such a doctrine is contrary to the gospel of Christ. Consider carefully..

Mark 7:7

"howbeit in vain they do worship Me, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men, for laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such like things you do."
Clearly, and without ambiguity, Jesus is telling them that the tradition of their congregation is subject to the scriptures, and not vice versa. Any Christian doctrine which denies this, considering scriptures such as this one, is ludicrous. Jesus would not have condemned them for their traditions, if the tradition of God's people was on a par with scripture. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now!

Yet Jesus also said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:2-3).

Proverbs 30:5-6

"Every Word of God is pure, He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.

add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar!"
This is a solemn declaration that every word of God is tried and pure and that we are not to add to His words, lest we be 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 complete, it's not an ongoing book anymore. 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" (Eccl. 12:13). We must not add to God's Word by claiming traditions are God's Word. We keep His Word alone as the Authority.

Two facts:
1) Martin Luther is the only person in history who has ever added to the Bible, when he added the word "alone" in Romans 3:28, he likewise was the first to remove books from the Bible.
2) The verse you quote above was written before the Bible was compiled and applied directly to that book.

Understanding this, we therefore know that those who reject the Scripture today as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, ultimately are subordinating the Word of God to tradition by making congregational tradition and Leadership 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, for every individual is ultimately responsible for what he believes, not the Church, and not his Priest or leader. Each man is judged for his own sin. We are all responsible to study the Bible, not leave that for others to do for us, and indeed Jesus himself said,

John 12:48

"He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My Words, hath one that judgeth him; the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the Last day!"
No one practicing the Catholic doctrine of Church Authority will be able to stand before God at the judgment and plead, "..the Pope and the Magisterium or my Priest told me to believe in this or that!" There is no such excuse available to men! We are to listen to God's Word, not their word. We therefore should carefully consider which Authority is really infallible, and therefore which one we should follow. God's Word (a given), or our Church tradition.

Therefore, I advise all Protestants to return to the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church is the Church of Sacred Scripture. There will be no excuses for those who read through the articles on this blog and do not convert, for now you know the truth.

John 10;27

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

But Jesus gave Peter charge of His sheep (John 21:15-17).

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!

So why do we go to Church on Sunday? The Bible never says that it is okay to go to Church on Sunday verses the Sabbath, which is Saturday. Might this be an "apostolic tradition" that Protestants are following?

Matthew 12:3-5

"but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?"
Again, when they questioned him about the law of God concerning divorce..

Matthew 19:4-5

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

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you BY GOD saying,

I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living!"
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

"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"
You see, that is where they would find the answers! In the scriptures! Again, 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

"..Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"
Once again, Jesus rejects ecclesiastical tradition of the Sadducees in favor of "Sola Scriptura!" He says (as the Church says today 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!

Jesus never says that Sola Scriptura is true....never. He does give authority to Peter in Matthew 16:19 and then later to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18.

Matthew 26:24

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

Jesus often taught things not in Scripture as mentioned earlier; i.e. Baptism, the Our Father, the forgiveness of sins, the necessity of eating His Body and drinking His Blood, etc. All doctrines that He gave us, yet not mentioned in Scripture before Christ.

John 5:39

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."
Why would Jesus be sending them to a non-Authoritative source for truth? ..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! Reformed Protestantism understands this wisdom most evident in Jesus Teachings!

Is that why Reformed Protestantism rejects the authority of the Catholic Church (Matthew 16, 18, 1 Timothy 3:15)? Is that why Reformed Protestantism no longer partakes in the Mass, thus failing to fulfill Jesus' mandate to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood (John 6:47-58)? If Sacred Scripture is the only source of divine authority on this earth then why do you fail to recognize these verses?

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.

Oh that's a good argument! Maybe we appeal to Scripture because we do consider the Bible as a source of truth, of paramount authority, yet not sole authority. We also have history, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the teachings of the Catholic Church to appeal to. A sound foundation with deep roots unlike Protestantism that currently is divided into over 20,000 denominations.

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!

So now you claim that some oral traditions are acceptable, which would be a direct contradiction to your earlier argument. Yet how did the Christians who lived between the time of Christ and 392 A.D. get by before the Bible was Complete!? The reasoning behind Sola Scriptura isn't even logical nor can it explain the fact that until approximately 1600 A.D. no one accepted this false doctrine.

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!

No, nonsense is thinking that one's own interpretation is sufficient for knowing the truths of God. What it is is religious relativism...it all depends on how I interpret the Bible. This cannot be true, nor the will of God, for Jesus prayed that we might be one just as He and the Father are One (John 17:20-21).

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!

The Catholic Church has existed since Christ established it. I think the burden of proof falls on Protestantism since it didn't come into existence until approximately 1600 A.D. Know the Bible, know your history.

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).

And yet it was the Catholic Church that decided what was true and of God and what wasn't. Don't forget St. Augustine...he was thankful that he could rely of the guidance and authority of the Catholic Church

False Dichotomy between Scripture and Traditions of God
The Roman church error lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny Sola Scriptura.

1 Cor. 11:2

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
2 Tim. 1:13

"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus."
2 Tim. 2:1-2

"Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

and the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
2 Tim. 3:14-17

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

and that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what 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.

1st Thessalonians. 2:13

"For this reason also we thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in Truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
2nd Thessalonians 2:15

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
There is nothing future about 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.

Does Paul say that all of the apostles' "oral traditions" were written down? No. Try again.

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

"For when God made promises to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself.."
No Pontiff or magisterium or Sacred Tradition is invoked to verify God's Word. That's an important point not to be missed! The supreme Authority is the Lord's own testimony to His Word. No further appeal is possible. He didn't swear by the Priests, He swore by himself! Nothing else could confirm God's own Word but God Alone! Other than Himself, His Holy Word stands alone as the Supreme Authority. Sola Scriptura! 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.

So the authority to bind and loose both on earth and in heaven isn't higher, isn't infallible? If something is bond both in heaven and on earth I would say that it is infallible.

Luke 16:29

"...they have Moses and the prophets, Let them hear them!"
God could have very easily said, they have the Church, the Church leaders, the magisterium, but He appealed to the scriptures as 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

"Jesus answered and said unto them, ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."
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, if we don't get it from God's Word?"
...and all God's people said, ...A M E N ! Out of the mouth of babes!
For knowing the nature of man, that indeed is a Good Question! Again, note the manner in which Christ refuted error. It was, "God said thus, but you say..." (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

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

Romans 3:3

"For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

God Forbid! Yea, Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
The truth is in God's Word, not in the words of Pontiff J., or Pastor B, or Church tradition Y, or even Tony Warren. The Truth is in God's Word. And if we don't read it in God's Word, then it's not God's Words. In determining which word has the Authority, let God be true, and every man a Liar!

Scripture declares that if you build on a foundation that is not the Word of God, and will not hear God's Word, then you build on a foundation which will crumble when the winds and the rains come (luke 6:47-49). God likens you to a foolish man. That's what God says! Build upon God's Word alone as the supreme Authority and you build upon a Rock! Sola Scriptura! A Firm foundation on the Word of God.

In closing I will say this, the danger of Sola Scriptura is that one can reach conclusions like Tony Warren's, conclusion that are not in accordance with Sacred Scripture nor shown throughout history. I quoted St. Augustine earlier in the post, yet there are hundreds of others within the first five centuries that testify to the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge all of our readers to do your homework, know the truths of the Catholic Faith.

Sola Scriptura presupposes many things like the availability of paper in early society, the fact that all can read, the fact that all believers had a Bible (something we know was not possible), and the existence of the printing press. These are logical and rational problems for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Christ founded a Church (Matthew 16) not the Bible, though He refers to Scripture, i.e. the Old Testament, He never mandates the compiling of all the books of the Old Testament with the books that hadn't even been written yet that would make up the New Testament. It is in the Catholic Church that we come to know and live the fullness of Truth.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by Joe at January 24, 2004 02:05 AM | TrackBack