SOLA SCRIPTURA: (C) (version 10) (scriptra.txt)
...written by Bob Stanley, 916-273-6415
October 21, 1995
*Email...bstanley@telis.org
Only the Bible...
Some people will say, "If it is not in the Bible, I will not believe it." Ask them if they believe in the Holy Trinity. If they say 'yes, of course', then say, "O.K. then find the word 'Trinity' for me in the Bible." They can't find it because that word is not in the Bible. How then can anyone who believes in the Holy Trinity say, 'SOLA SCRIPTURA' (only the Bible)?
Simple-
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
There are three entities of deity here.
First, Jesus the Son of God, who is being baptized.
Second, God the Holy Spirit who descends like a dove.
Third, God the Father who speaks from heaven claiming Jesus as His Son.
That looks like a trinity to me. The point is that the concept of the Trinity IS found in scripture. The fact that the word trinity does not is irrelevant. The same is true with the concept of Sola Scriptura. The words need not be in the Bible for the concept to be found there.
Here is a link to my article on 
SOLA SCRIPTURA. If you have not read it,
please do so before continuing.
Do you sincerely believe the Bible is the Holy Word of GOD, and is the truth?
Yes, of course.
Do you feel if it is in the Bible, you can believe it?
It, meaning doctrines... Absolutely!
Do you feel if it is not in the Bible, you will not believe it?
Precisely, I can safely reject any doctrine not taught by the Bible.
But what about 'Tradition'?
Some people will say 'Tradition' is just something the Catholic Church uses and we can't
really believe it because if it isn't written, it can't be true. 'SOLA SCRIPTURA'...
Lets look at this more closely...
Now some are saying, they believe in the 'Trinity', of which, the word is not in the Bible (neither is the word 'Incarnation' but most Christians believe in it), ....
The concept of the trinity is found in the Bible, even if the word is not. (see above). The same is true of the incarnation and Sola Scriptura.
... but they don't believe in 'Tradition' which IS in the Bible. What? 'Tradition' is in the Bible...?
Careful now. Notice the capital T in Tradition there. The
claim is being made here that Roman Catholic Tradition is to be found in the Bible. Here
is a link to my article on every single occurance of the word TRADITION in the New Testament
... It will begin by explaining just what Tradition (T) is to a Catholic, in their own
words, which is essential to understand in this discussion.
TRADITIONWell for starters, look in your Bible in Thessalonians:
2Thes 2:15, 'Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our Epistle'.
This verse is telling you to honor the traditions which have been handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. SOLA SCRIPTURA...? No way, "For the Bible tells me so."
There is a subtle blurring of the difference between Tradition with capitol "T" and tradition with a lower case "t". Every sermon ever given, no matter how godly, is tradition (t). The Bible itself is tradition (t). Anything passed on from one person to another is tradition (t). But is Paul advocating Tradition (T) (unbiblical doctrines)? No, he is warning those in Thessolonica to beware of anyone who tries to teach them a Gospel message other than the one he preached. Specifically he is talking about how soon the second coming would be, that it was not imminent as they thought (vs. 2-3). Paul is not making a case for unbiblical doctrines, he is warning against those who would teach (by any means) doctrines contradictory to his own teaching. That principle applies today. If Paul did not teach a doctrine, then he strongly warns against it as false. (See Galations 1:6-8) The Catholics are doing precisely what Paul condemns.
An 'apparent' Bible conflict with 2Thes 2:15, is Col 2:8,
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the 'tradition' of MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
However the Bible refers to two types of 'Tradition', human 'tradition' (small 't') handed down by men and not after Christ (as stated in Col 2:8), and apostolic 'Tradition' (capital 'T'), handed down from the 'Word of GOD', the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and the on going teaching of the Church.
This is not an accurate or complete definition of terms. A further clarification-
Jesus and the apostles all taught the word of God orally. This is tradition (t) in the generic sense. Simultaneous with, and subsequent to this oral teaching, the New Testament was written, transfering the oral teachings to the written word. This is also tradition (t) and also the word of God. Tradition (T) is not to be found in scripture by Catholic definition, yet is made equal to scripture in authority. Tradition (T) is said to be the word of God also, and equally binding on the Catholic. The Catholic claims that there are doctrines essential to salvation [Tradition (T) ] that are not to be found in the Bible, but that are revealed ONLY from the Papacy or Magisterium.
The condemnations of tradition in Mt 15:3, Mk 7:9, and Col 2:8 refer to bad human traditions. 2Thes 2:15 refers to apostolic tradition, the 'Word of GOD'. See references at the end of this file.
For this argument to be valid, one would have to prove that essential doctrines (articles of faith) as taught by Paul were the subject of 2 Thess 2:15, but were never recorded in the Bible. How do you prove that?
It is generally accepted that Moses wrote the first few books of the Old Testament. His time was many hundreds of years later than the time of Adam and Eve, and others in these first books. He had no 'Bible' with which to refer while writing Genesis, but he was inspired by GOD, and he did have 'Tradition', handed down to him from generation to generation.
Moses throughout his adult life spoke directly with God face to face. His books are the result of those conversations with God. Moses had no need for oral traditions or fables from men. Interestingly enough, Paul states this was the case with himself quite clearly in the first chapter of Galatians. Looks like a trend to me.
Jesus Christ taught orally, the 'spoken word'. He did not write a book. The only record that He wrote anything at all is in Jn 8:6-8, "Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground." We do not even know what He wrote.
This is irrelevant. What doctrines essential to salvation were taught by Jesus and never recorded in Scripture? What proof can be offered? None in both cases.
The first book of the New Testament was written many years after His death. Where did the New Testament writers get their source, Sola Scriptura?
In many cases they were eye witnesses to what they wrote, or had spoken with eyewitnesses, but their primary source was the Holy Spirit- 2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, ...
There was no Scriptura to draw from at that time, ...
No scripture to draw from??? What did the Bereans have to consult? (Acts 17:10-11) What about the Old Testament? It was THE authority they used to check up on whether or not Paul was preaching the truth! Imagine that. They did not trust Paul until what he taught was checked and in complete harmony with the Old Testament! And Paul was IMPRESSED by the Bereans because they did this! This is Sola Scriptura in action!
... so 'Tradition' had to have played a big role in the writing of these books. If you had no Tradition, you would have no Bible.
It would seem that Bob confuses Tradition (T) and tradition again. The Holy Spirit inspired all scripture. That is the process of tradition (t) not Tradition (T). Preaching also passes on the word of God. That is tradition (t) not Tradition (T). A doctrine proclaimed without a scintilla of Biblical foundation or proof is Tradition (T). How Tradition (T) can play any part in the production of the Bible is beyond me. The two are in direct opposition to each other.
There were many books written before and after the New Testament. The Bible does not say that it is the only book to be believed.
The issue better stated is whether or not the Bible should be the only source for doctrinal beliefs, otherwise known as articles of faith, and whether or not the Bible makes this principle clear. I maintain that it does teach the principle.
Many say Peter was not the first Pope, because the Bible does not say he was ever in Rome. It does not say he wasn't there either. Many other writings of the same era (Eusebius Pamphilius, for example), say he was indeed in Rome, and he died there. This was shown to be true as his tomb was found under St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
Whether or not Peter was ever in Rome is not important. Just who's remains are in the crypt in St. Peter's has never been proved to my knowledge. It may be nothing more than rumor, or it may be Peter. Either way, this does not affect the doctrinal issues or articles of faith as they relate to Sola Scriptura.
In Matthew 1:1-17, we have the 'begats', the genealogy of Jesus Christ (v1,17). It is interesting to note that the genealogy is for Jesus's foster father, St. Joseph, who was not His real Father and not a blood relation. The genealogy of Mary, His real mother, a blood relation, who gave Him birth is not stated. After all, the substance of the blood that flowed through the veins of Jesus came from Mary. How do you account for this 'apparent omission' in the Word of GOD? The answer is, it was 'TRADITIONAL' for the Jews to show the genealogy of the males and not the females. This clearly shows that 'Tradition' played a big role in the written Word of the Holy Bible.
Things that ARE recorded in the Bible are NOT Tradition (T) by definition! The geneology of Jesus is recorded to fulfill prophecy and it does that. Jews of that era could probably check the ancestry of Jesus (and probably did) to validate the prophecy that the messiah would be descended from David. That Joseph's lineage was provided rather than Mary's, because of Jewish tradition (t), does not validate unbiblical Tradition (T). The lack of Mary's detailed lineage shows that it would not have been proof of anything.
* Note! The Bible does show Mary to be of the house of David, but no ancestral line can be traced. If you will compare:
Gen 3:15, "I will put enmity between thy seed and her 'SEED' (Jesus)..."
Gen 3:15 is spoken to Satan and is about Eve's seed (descendant) which eventually was indeed Jesus. Mary though, is not in the verse. Here is my article on the
PROTO-EVANGELIUM that elaborates on Catholic interpretation of this verse. Rom 1:3, "Concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the 'SEED' of David according to the flesh."
Rom 1:3 - It was the blood line of Joseph that made Jesus a descendant of David according to prophecy, not Mary. Mary's lineage is not recorded. Only Joseph's geneology is offered by Matthew in his first chapter, because it was the only proof needed to show all the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah coming from the seed of Abraham and David were fulfilled.
Lk 1:32, "...and the Lord GOD will give Him the throne of David His father, and He shall be King over the house of Jacob forever."
Lk 1:32- Again David is the Father of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary.
Also see, Isa 7:13-14, Jn 7:42, Acts 2:29-30, 13:22-23, 2Tim 2:8, Rev 5:5.
The first chapter of Matthew proves these verses were fulfilled entirely in the blood line of Joseph.
Some other words, with a similar meaning to the word, 'Tradition', are used throughout the Bible. Some examples are:
Mt 28:20, "TEACHING them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU."
Jn 15:27, "And you also shall BEAR WITNESS, because you have been with Me from the beginning."
1Cor 11:2, 'Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES (the Greek text says, 'keep the TRADITIONS'), as I delivered them to you'.
1Cor 15:2, 'By which ye are saved, if ye keep in MEMORY what I preached to you, unless ye have believed in vain'.
All these verses refer to tradition (t), but not Tradition (T). Again, every spoken sermon ever given is oral tradition (t). It is quite a stretch to try and fill such sermons with unbiblical Catholic doctrines to qualify them as Tradition (T). One must keep mindful of the difference between them. Not all tradition is the same.
Isa 59:21, '...My words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever'. Isaiah said it all...
Ah, now here is an interesting case. This verse is not
what it appears.
I have an article devoted to The Covenant of Isa 59:21 explained. Quoting this verse out of
context can be most embarrasing to the advocate of Tradition.
See also, 2Tim 1:13, 2Tim 2:2, 2Tim 3:14, 1Pet 1:25, 1Jn 2:24, 2Jn 1:12
The above verses all prove that the Gospel message was spoken. Who denies that? It still is. There is however, not a shred of evidence to support the notion that some doctrines taught were never recorded, and cannot be found today somewhere in scripture. That is Tradition (T).
Another verse using the word, 'tradition' (human tradition) is:
Gal 1:14, 'And profited in the Jews religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the TRADITIONS of my fathers'.
Indeed, verses 11-13 show Paul claiming the Gospel he preached came from God and not man (tradition). When he followed the tradition of the Jews he persecuted God's church zealously. He did not confer with men for the Gospel (v. 16), not even apostles (v.17). Read in context, Paul is repudiating the traditions of his fathers.
It has been said, that all that is written in the Gospels cumulatively, would only cover 18 days in the life of Jesus Christ. He lived for 33 years or 33 X 365 = 12045 days. What about the missing 12027 days? Where are the 'writings' of over 99% of His life? A good part is probably lost, and the remainder is, no doubt...TRADITION!
How can anyone dismiss what John says in: John 20:30 and 21:25
Jn 21:25, 'And there are also MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH JESUS DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the WORLD ITSELF COULD NOT CONTAIN THE BOOKS THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN. AMEN'. Amen is right...
So what does all this mean...? In a few words, 'KEEP THE TRADITIONS'.
Looks real good at first doesn't it? But it is not what
you think! John closes the door on any such attempt to promote unbiblical articles of
faith like Catholic Tradition-
Please see Proof the Bible is not Complete in Doctrine?
The 'triangle'...
Have you ever looked at an equilateral triangle (equal lengths and angles in all dimensions)? It is the strongest, most rigid geometric form in existence. You see a lot of them in use in bridges to add strength. The Catholic Church is very careful to preserve 'Tradition'. It is one leg of a triangle of Church teaching. The other two legs are Holy Scripture and the Magisterium. No one leg can subsist without the other two. We have a triangle in the Holy Trinity, a triangle in the teaching of the Church, and a triangle in each living person, a body, soul, and spirit. The legs of each of these 3 triangles cannot be separated and still retain the attributes, integrity, and the meaning of the whole.
I really fail to see how the previous paragraph is anything but a sales pitch.
The best one liner, for the defense of 'Tradition', I have heard is, "SOLA SCRIPTURA, show me in the Bible where it says, SOLA SCRIPTURA, only the Bible."
This shows how little substance there is in the Catholic argument. With tongue firmly in cheek let me adopt the same perspective for a moment-
May I point out that the words Trinity or Triune God do not appear anywhere in Scripture. Therefore, the Bible does not teach it!
No where in Scripture does Jesus say I, Jesus Christ am God. Clearly then, this is a concept not taught in the Bible!
The word rapture cannot be found in scripture, so there is no such event taught within the covers of the Bible!
How does this kind of approach ever arrive at the truth?
St. Augustine, Martin Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about Sola Scriptura. He said, "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."
Well St. Augustine is entitled to his opinion, but volumes of such statements filling entire libraries do not equal the authority of a single verse of scripture.
Bible References for Sola Scriptura:
Gen 3:15, Isa 7:13-14, Mt 1:1-17, Lk 1:32, Jn 7:42, Acts 2:29-30, Acts 13:22-23, Rom 1:3, 2Tim 2:8, Rev 5:5
Apostolic 'Tradition': Psa 44:1,45:17,77:5,10-11,105:5,143:5, Prov 2:17,6:20, *Isa 40:8, *Isa 59:21, Mt 28:20, *Mk 13:31, Lk 2:19,51, Jn 14:25-26,15:27, Jn 21:24-25, Act 2:42, Rom 12:6, 1Cor *2:13,11:2, 1Cor 15:2, 2Cor 3:2-3, *2Thes 2:14-15, *2Thes 3:6, 2Tim 1:13, 2Tim 2:2,15,3:14, Heb 2:1, *1Pet 1:25, *2Pet 1:20, 1Jn 1:1, 1Jn 2:24, *2Jn 1:12, *3Jn 1:13-14, Jud 1:3
Human 'tradition': Mt 15:2,3,6, Mk 7:3,5,8,9,13, *1Cor 2:13, Gal 1:14, *Col 2:8,14, Tit 1:14, 1Pet 1:18
