The Bible: Sufficient or in Need of Tradition

[MichaelB]

The divide between the Roman Catholic and Protestant understandings of what constitutes the Christian faith can be reduced to two views of sacred Scripture. Protestantism historically has held that the text of Scripture is the exclusive infallible authority for all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. The Protestant understanding, known as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or Scripture alone), also contends that God has spoken both sufficiently and with clarity in His word (1). The Roman Catholic position rejects the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and teaches that while the text of Scripture is the word of God and does tell of His redemption, it must be understood through the lens of the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. Roman Catholicism rejects the sufficiency of the 66 books of Scripture and teaches that the totality of the word of God is provided both in Scripture and through the Church's tradition (2). This view also teaches that the tradition of the church has equity with Scripture as the word of God (3).

Because both of these views acknowledge the divine authorship and inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, both are bound to the testimony therein. Should the testimony of the Scriptures reveal that either historic Protestantism's exclusive reliance on the text is unfounded, or the equivocation of Roman Catholic tradition unwarranted, the incorrect view must be abandoned. One may object to the seeming circularity in such a proposition. After all, the Protestant must go to the Scripture to demonstrate the Scripture's exclusivity, sufficiency, and clarity. This issue finds it's resolution in the mutual agreement that Scripture is in fact the word of the Living God. The Protestant position lives or dies on the nothing less than the attestation of Sola Scriptura by God Himself. The Roman Catholic view however, cannot assume that which constitutes the word of God contains within it "sacred tradition."To make such an assumption would result in a grandiose illustration of circular reasoning unless the text of Scripture substantiates the existence and infallibility of Roman Catholic tradition.

It is the unquestionable testimony of the Triune God that His word, as written in the 66 books of the bible, is the clear, sufficient, and exclusive infallible authority in Christian faith and practice. The evidence of this truth is manifold and penetrating to even the most devout critic:

Psalm 19:7-9 The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.

The above text provides a profound description of the nature of Scripture. Firstly, the psalmist speaks of the reviving power of the law of the Lord. The word "law" as Dr. John Macarthur notes, "emphasizes the didactic nature of Scripture. Here David uses it to refer to Scripture as the sum of what God has revealed for our instruction, whether it be creed (what we believe), character (what we are), or conduct (what we do)(4)." It is this law that is perfect; that is, it is without need, blemishless, whole, and faultless. In a word, David tells us that the law of the Lord is sufficient. It is this sufficient word of God that the Apostle tells us brings faith to the human heart, thus reviving the soul: "so faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17), and "in him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13)" The psalmist remarks that the testimony of the Lord is sure. The word rendered "sure" is the word aman which means certain or trustworthy(5). It is this certain, trustworthy word that makes the simple person wise, and this without the aid of an external apparatus such as a prophet, tradition, or a magesterium. Far from recognizing an equity with or dependence on tradition, David tells us that the means by which God brings wisdom to the simple is His perfect word. The precepts of the Lord are such that their righteousness makes the heart rejoice, and this without need of third party interference. The commandments of the Lord are pure; that is, untainted, clear, or unfouled. This clause speaks of the clarity of the word of God and it's result on the reader: the pure word of the Lord enlightens the eyes, illuminating the mind.

Ps 1:1-6 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

God exhorts the man who invests himself in the word of God. The description provided within the text identifies the man's stability and prosperity to be a product of his devotion to the word of the Lord. This blessed man is held in direct contrast with the one who instead gives his ear unto unholy counsel. That is, the text provides a contrast between the man who reveres the word of God over and against the man who reveres the word of fallible men. The text presupposes both the clarity and sufficiency of the word of God and presents the benefits of careful study in the highest possible terms.

Matt 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'''

Our Lord provides an impressive declaration in His response to the adversary. Not only does the incarnate Son proclaim both the sufficiency and exclusivity of the word of God, but He does so by quoting Scripture. In quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, Jesus testifies to the continuity of the exclusivity and sufficiency of Scripture throughout the cannon. Never in the Scripture does the Jesus appeal to a verbal tradition to teach or refute false teachings. Instead, His appeal is to the text as made evident by His copious use of the phrase "It is written."

Matt 4:7-11 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

Again, our Lord appeals to the written text exclusively, thus modeling what His disciples ought to do when confronted with the adversary. Note that it is His utilization of the Scripture that causes Satan himself to flee! What greater testimony as to the sufficiency of Scripture can there be?

Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?"

Our Lord's criticism of the Sadducees is born out of their failure to "know the Scriptures." While the Sadducees were steeped in tradition, their lack of biblical knowledge led them to a rejection of a key doctrine; the resurrection of the dead. Furthermore, Jesus' refutation of their position lies in the Scripture's use of a single word; "And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Mark 12:26, italics/bold mine)?" Jesus relied upon the tense of a single verb to uphold the glorious truth of the resurrection. His criticism of the Sadducees proves that His expectation is that people read, study, and understand the Scriptures. This presupposes the ability of man to comprehend and make theological deductions from the text absent of a co-equal tradition. Note that the Lord does not criticize their ignorance of rabbinic tradition or otherwise, only their abject ignorance of the power of God by means of their failure to recognize the importance of Scripture.

1Cor 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

To understand what Paul meant by, "learn by us not to go beyond what is written," consideration to both the immediate context and the contents of the preceding three chapters must be given. Paul has written the Corinthian church with the highest credentials possible; "Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus (1:1)." It is with this divinely given authority that the Apostle appeals to the Corinthian Christians by the sacred name of the Lord Jesus (1:10) to put an end to disunity in the church. In fact, a large portion of chapter one and the totality of chapter three are dedicated to ending divisiveness in the Corinthian church. Chapter two provides a brief synopsis of the Apostle's ministry in Corinth (2:1-5) and Paul's discourse on the spiritual nature of divine revelation (2:6-16). In 4:1 Paul acknowledges that his office includes the responsibility of the stewardship of the "mysteries of God." This is undoubtedly an affirmation of the revelation entrusted to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). He then pronounces himself immune from human judgement (4:2-5) and cites the Lord as the one who reveals the motivations of the heart for judgement. It is upon this contextual foundation that the Apostle states,"learn by us not to go beyond what is written." Paul had noted his stewardship of the mysteries of God and that it was he who bore the responsibility his office demanded. Even though he was free from human judgement and an Apostle, he submitted himself as one who has received that which he has by virtue of Christ. He states "learn by us," indicating that he was providing a living example of adhering to the written text of Scripture. The Apostle had quoted Scripture at least five times up to 1Cor 4:6. In calling for such a limitation, the Apostle safeguarded the Corinthian church from individual pride and from honoring Christian leadership in too high esteem. The Corinthians had previously fell victim to exalting Paul and Apollos to an unhealthy level (3:4), and therefore by pointing the church back to God by virtue of his own submission to the written text, Paul provided a supreme basis for church unity. In brief, the Apostolic methodology for preserving church unity and reducing the propensity of pride in the life of the believer is limiting the church to the written revelation of God; that is, Sola Scriptura.

"Catholic Answers," a Roman Catholic apologetic ministry has put forth the following objections to the Protestant interpretation of 1Corinthians 4:6: "What is certain is that Paul, in saying, "do not go beyond what is written," was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: 1. Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; 2. accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); 3. accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or 4. the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.(6)"

These objections miss the obvious. Paul himself stated that he had been entrusted with God's revelation (1Cor 2:10, 1Cor 15:3, Gal 1:12, Acts 22:14). Therefore, given his knowledge and acknowledgement of New Testament Scripture (1Tim 5:18/Luke 10:7), it is entirely consistent with the Apostle's theology for him to have limited the Corinthian church to the written Scripture to avoid disunity in the body. Paul was not ordering that the Old Testament be adhered to to the exclusion of all else, this would ignore his own apostolic office and the responsibilities therein. Instead, Paul was limiting the church to adhere to the Scriptures that had been received. The reception of this precept by the Corinthians carries with it the acknowledgement of Paul's apostolic authority and the possibility for further revelation. This is what is meant by the Apostles statement in 1Cor 4:1, "this is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God."Therefore, the Roman Catholic objections fail in that they import an exclusivism where there is no textual warrant to do so.

1Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

The above text is one that is often used to provide validation for Roman Catholic tradition. The text echoes Paul's statement to the Thessalonian church; "so then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (2Thes 2:15)." Could it be that even after his previous statement, " learn by us not to go beyond what is written," that the Apostle is now advocating a set of holy oral traditions that is of equal authority to the Scriptures? Consider the content of Roman Catholic tradition: the papacy, the immaculate conception and bodily assumption of Mary, prayers to and for the deceased, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, etc. Is there really any evidence within the New Testament for anything remotely close to these doctrines? It must be recognized that there is no evidence to suggest that the traditions that Paul spoke of consisted of anything different than that documented in the New Testament. Furthermore, one would expect Paul or any other New Testament author to include even a minuscule reference of the multiplicity of doctrines covered under the banner of Roman Catholic tradition. Instead, not only is there no evidence of the existence of Rome's sacred tradition, but there are a vast number of texts that out rightly preclude any harmony between Roman Catholic tradition and the Scriptures. Take for example the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass. According to the Roman Catholic church, the mass is a propitiatory (that is, it removes the wrath of God) sacrifice that is repeatedly offered by a priest who holds the title of "Alter Christus" (which means "Another Christ")(7). This doctrine is in complete contradiction to the Scripture. The author of Hebrews when addressing the sacrifice of Christ wrote, "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself (Heb 7:27),""so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him (Heb 9:28)," and "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified (Heb 10:10-12)." Clearly the Scriptures know nothing of a repetitious re-sacrifice (that is, representing ad infinitum the one sacrifice of Christ) of the Son of God. To suppose otherwise is to view the once for all sacrifice of Christ as deficient, and in need of human augmentation to become efficous.

The burden of proving the existence of an authoritative oral tradition passed down by the Apostles is squarely on the shoulders of the Roman Catholic religion. While it may be convenient for some Roman Catholics to hijack verses that use the phrase "tradition," there has been no progress made in providing any Scriptural ground for the multitude of aberrations contained within the dogmas of Rome.

John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

In this text, our Lord equates that which is the "word of God" exclusively with the Scripture. His appeal to the text serves to again buttress Sola Scriptura in that Jesus' exclusively rebuked the Jewish leaders with the written text of Scripture.

2Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Paul leaves no ambiguity in his description of Scripture. He begins with an acknowledgement of divine authorship; a virtue never attributed to any tradition within the text of Scripture. It is this divinely inspired Scripture that is not only suitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness, but it is that which equips the man of God for every good work. The language utilized is comprehensive, and irrefutable. One need only ask what more could Roman Catholic tradition add if the Scriptures are sufficient to equip the believer for every single good work?

It is doubtless that Roman Catholicism would categorize offering prayers to Mary a good work. Therefore, if the Scripture is all that is required to equip believers for every good work, where then is the Scriptural basis for such a prayer, or for that matter where is the basis for prayers offered to anyone other than God? If we are to believe the Apostle in his description of Scripture, where is the Scriptural basis for so many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic church? The answer is obvious, there isn't any Scriptural basis for these dogmas. Thus the desperate attempt to proclaim Roman Catholicism's 2000 year old continuity with the biblical faith has been met with a refutation that comes from the Living God.

Tim Staples, a Roman Catholic apologist, argues "the two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims (8)."

Mr. Staple's objection suffers profoundly in that it ignores what the actual text of 1Tim 3:16-17 states. The Apostle is speaking of "all Scripture;" that is, all that constitutes Scripture. Paul places no qualifications on his statement, nor does he need to do as much. Paul states that all Scripture is "theopneustos," or "inspired of God (9)." It is because of this characteristic of all Scripture that it is sufficient, whether it be that which existed at the time of Paul's writing, or the Scripture as we know it. In other words, the total sufficiency of Scripture finds it's veracity bound up in the nature of it's author; God. By virtue of his argumentation, Mr. Staples has attempted to impose a limitation upon the text that the author did not acknowledge.

Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

In the beginning of his gospel, Luke provides insight into his motivations for his writing. He states "that you have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Should an oral tradition have been sufficient, Luke's motivation would have been unnecessary. He writes to provide "asphaleia ," rendered in the above text as certainty. Asphaleia means the exact truth (10), and this according to Luke is to be found in the written text. John makes a similar statement in his gospel when he states, "now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31)." Like Luke, John felt that it is the written text that is sufficient basis of belief and certainty in the person and work of Christ. To both John and Luke, it is the written word of God that is the means of belief and certainty; a sentiment echoed by the Apostle Paul when he stated, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17)."

One popular Roman Catholic objection is that John notes that the entirety of Jesus' signs are not to be found in the Scriptures. That being the case, says the Roman Catholic, the Scriptures are not the totality of God's revelation. To this objection, I would note that the Roman Catholic church has yet to provide even a single word spoken by Jesus that is not documented in Scripture. Furthermore, the emphasis of the inspired writer was on the text and the sufficiency therein. That said, the Roman Catholic objection is one that is placed against the Apostle's own divinely inspired motivations for writing the gospel.

Luke 10:25-28 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

Our Lord responds to his questioner with a set of questions of his own; "what is written in the Law? How do you read it?” In doing so, Jesus assumes that the man could not only understand the Scriptures, but interpret them. The questioning lawyer was affirmed in his interpretation, thus verifying both the clarity and sufficiency of the Scriptures apart from tradition.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

When the Apostle Paul came to Berea and preached in the synagogue, his Jewish hearers did not blindly accept his testimony. Instead they tested Paul's message with the Scriptures to see if the Apostle's testimony was valid. Because of this, Paul tells us these Jews were "noble." Notice how there was not an appeal to any rabbinic tradition or otherwise by the Jews. Paul's own apostolic message was subject to verification by the Scriptures!

Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
The Apostle reveals God's intention in providing the Old Testament Scriptures for the church, and in doing so provides today's church with an invaluable precept. The Scriptures of old were written for the instruction of the church, much like that of the New Testament. This presupposes both the sufficiency of the text of Scripture to communicate clearly without an authoritative magesterium. Note that it is through the enduring study of the Scriptures that we ought to have hope. Never does any biblical author gives such credence to oral traditions or otherwise.

Matthew 15:1-6 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day for adhering to tradition over the Scripture. Like these Pharisees, the Roman Catholic magisterium issues doctrines from tradition that make void the testimony of God. For example, in Paul tells us that sinners are justified in the sight of God upon faith in Christ (Rom 5:1). He also tells us that it is "faith apart from works (Rom 4:6)" that saves sinners from the wrath of God, and that "by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9)." This is in direct contradiction to the gospel of the Roman Catholic church which teaches "moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification (11)."

While the testimony of the Scriptures concurs with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, what was the sentiment among the early church? What does church tradition have to say about the role and nature of the Scriptures? Below are a number of direct quotes from various leaders of the early Christian church:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles (12)."
Irenaeus, 180AD

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves (13a)."
Clement of Alexandria, 180AD

"For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," [Heb 1:1] leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful." ... "For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings , in order to establish the heresy (13b)."
Clement of Alexadria, 180AD

"And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent (14)."
Tertullian, 200AD

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source (15)."
Hippolytus, 180-230

"The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth (16)."
Athanasius, 296-373AD

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures (17)."
Cyril of Jerusalem, 310-386AD

"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves to be wise; but be wise, as himself says, unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith. Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me (18)."
Augustine, 354-430AD

"All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books (19)."
Augustine, 354-430AD

The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject what is foreign(20)."
Basil the great, 330-379

“The Scriptures are enough for instruction (21).”
Antony of Egypt, 251-356AD

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ (22)."
Jerome

While the patristic writings are not authoritative so far as they deviate from the Scripture, they are valuable in that they evidence the early church's understanding of the role of Scripture. While the few excerpts I have provided do not give a comprehensive outlook on the view of Scripture held by the early church, they do demonstrate that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is no 16th century novelty.

Because neither the Scriptures nor the early church attest to the Roman Catholic position, those who confess Jesus as Lord must ask themselves, "to whom does my allegiance belong?" While the Roman Catholic church constantly tells it's adherents that it is the body of Christ, it's doctrines and practices tell another tale that is completely incompatible with such a profession. The text of Scripture is not to be relegated to equal status with man's traditions. For it is the Scripture; the very word of the Living God, and it contains His redemptive purpose and salvation. While no fellowship is perfect, those who find themselves in need of a Christian church should seek one that teaches the biblical gospel of faith alone and recognizes the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice.


Endnotes
1. For example: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 1, Sect. 6, http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
and
"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, Chap. 1, Sect 1. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part1

2. "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One "The Profession of Faith," Section One "I Believe - We Believe," Chap. Two "God comes to meet man," Article 2 "The Transmission of Divine Revelation," "The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture"#81
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#II

3. "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." and "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One "The Profession of Faith," Section One "I Believe - We Believe," Chap. Two "God comes to meet man," Article 2 "The Transmission of Divine Revelation" "The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture"#82 and "In Brief" #97 respectively
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#II

4. "The Master's Seminary Journal," page 166, "The Sufficiency of Scripture," by Dr. John Macarthur

5. Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for 'aman," The NASB Old Testament Lexicon

6. "Going Beyond," by Patrick Madrid, an article from "This Rock" vol 3, Number 8, August 1992 http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp

7. "If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." The Roman Catholic Counsel at Trent, "On the sacrifice of the Mass," Canon III

8. "According to Scripture," by Tim Staples, an article from "This Rock" vol 18, Number , January 2007
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701btb.asp

9. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Theopneustos," "The NASB New Testament Greek Lexicon" 1999

10. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Asphaleia," "The NASB New Testament Greek Lexicon" 1999

11. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three "Life in Christ," Section one "Man's vocation in life and in the Spirit," Chap 3 "God's Salavation: Law and Grace," Article 2 "Grace and Justification." #2010 http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm#I

12. "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus, 3:1,1 excerpt from "The Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. I, p. 414.

13a. "Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished," by Clement of Alexandria, excerpt form "The writings of Clement of Alexandria," by Titus Flavius Clemens, chap 16, page 476,
b. chap 16, page 477

14. "De Corona," by Tertullian, an excerpt from "Ante-Nicene Fathers," Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, volume 3

15. "Against the heresy of Noetus," by Hippolytus, excerpt from "Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Dogmatical and Historical," chapter 9 http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ogmatical.html

16. "Against the heathen," by Athanasius, 3:1, excerpt from "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," "Athanasius: Select Works and Letters," by Philip Schaff

17. "Catechetical Lectures," by Cyril of Jerusalem, 4:17, an excerpt from "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" by Philip Schaff,volume 7, page 23.

18. "On the good of widowhood," by Augustine, paragraph 2, an excerpt from "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Volume 3, by Philip Schaff

19. "On the Unity of the Church," by Augstine, paragraph 16, excerpt from William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., Volume. 3, page 165.

20. "Moralia," by Basil the great, 72,1 as quoted in "Examination of the Council of Trent," by Martin Chemnitz, volume 1, page 152

21. As quoted in "Life of Antony," by Athanasius of Alexandria, paragraph 16. http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/vita.htm

22. "Commentary on Isaiah," by Jerome, as quoted in "Scripture Matters: Essays on Reading the Bible from the Heart of the Church," by Scott Hahn, page 1

23. Please visit my site for more articles

[justsumguy]

The Protestant claim doesn't work because the Protestants prove it doesn't work (the scripture is obviously not clear enough for them to agree on everything - and that holds true within every sect).

The only way the Protestant claim would work is for two people to have their own sect and agree with everything the Bible is saying (and there is no evidence of such a thing having ever been accomplished). Even if the Protestant claim is true, it would boil down to the claim being assigned to one person. In my opinion, that would denote progress.

The Roman Catholic claim can't be beat with a stick. The "church" proclaimed itself THE CHURCH, uses the verse that says the church is blameless....
so it can't lose. The Church is defined through whatever the head spokesperson says...which is God's word...so wallah!!!
It doesn't matter if it changes it's view of something the Bible says...that's the way God wanted it to go down. Since the church is defined by the spokesperson, it doesn't matter if anyone disagrees. Their disagreement is simply wrong and they are not expected to understand the scriptures. Well...at least the Bible isn't telling the spokesperson to torture anyone nowadays for not seeing the light.

[Wolfgang]

There are some important items that were left out of the Protestant versus Catholic discussion. The Bible, or its books came into existence before Catholicism and prophesied many years in advance evil identified by the number 666. When you add up the numeric equivalent of the Roman letters inscribed on the Pope's turban you get the 666 number. Also, the historical track record of the Catholic Church's Inquisition which killed at least 35,000 people according to one expert and probably maimed tens of thousands more is impressive proof of the evil Catholicism's man made or demon influenced doctrines are capable of. The initial Protestant versus Catholic discussion on Theologyweb seems to regard both religions as basically equal in some ways. They are not really equal in any decent way since even modern day life has been occasionally cursed by Catholic teachings such as priest and nun celibacy which has led to unnatural priest-boy interaction, etc. Catholicism, after an honest analysis, is Satanic in many ways. 35,000 dead people, if they could speak, could testify to the truthfulness of what I just said.

[Dee Dee Warren]

You are kidding right Wolfgang? (and some of the oldest manuscripts say 616, though I personally do think the original was 666, but the change shows us that the early scribes knew was being spoken of)

[Thersites]

Michael, I read your article, but I remain unconvinced that you understand the arguments advanced by the Roman Catholic side.

Perhaps I could help to clarify: the argument regarding Paul's references to "Scripture"-- the argument lies in understanding exactly what Paul meant by "Scriptures"-- Paul was not and could not have been referring to the Gospels or to any other part of the New Testament which had not yet been written. Moreover, the claims that Scripture is sufficient can only be taken to refer to the existing Scriptures-- that is, anything written after the claim that Scripture is sufficient... is superfluous.

This applies also to the Psalms. The Psalmist, you have pointed out, wrote that the law of the Lord is perfect: the obvious problem here is that David could have been referring to the Penteteuch at best-- according to David, all we need is the Mosaic Law. This would seem to suggest that 61 of the 66 books in your Bible are unnecessary.

You reference the argument based on Thessalonians, but dismiss it without considering the applications of that passage-- Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to them either by word of mouth or by letter. You bring up a passage which conflicts with it and seem to say that, because Paul has said not to go beyond what is written, he cannot possibly mean that we are to hold fast to traditions that are received by word of mouth. This makes no sense. You ridicule specific Catholic doctrines as unscriptural, but offer no explanation that I can see as to what Paul was referring to when he urged the Thessalonians to hold to oral traditions.

Finally, there is one more point you make which particularly demands a response: you claim that the Roman Catholic argument is circular; if it is, it is nevertheless a wider circle than your own: why do you believe Scripture is sufficient? If it is because Scripture says so, then your argument is circular already!

[daniel1212]

The only way the Protestant claim would work is for two people to have their own sect and agree with everything the Bible is saying (and there is no evidence of such a thing having ever been accomplished). Even if the Protestant claim is true, it would boil down to the claim being assigned to one person. In my opinion, that would denote progress.

No, the Protestant claim does not require or infer that two must agree with everything the Bible is saying (which would presume omniscience on their part) in order to hold to it as the supreme judge of truth, nor does Rome's magisterium alternative even come close to that comprehensiveness, as exceedingly little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, and as a result, "the Catholic Bible interpreter has...a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty.” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic apologist)

And just as Rome has foundational truths which must be adhered to with assent of faith, while allowing varying degrees of dissent on non-infallible teachings of the ordinary and general magisteriums, likewise those who demonstrably hold to the supremacy of Scripture (from S. Baptists to Calvary chapels to reformed churches) typically allow a limited amount of liberty in a limited amount of Scripture, while being most universally unified in the core essentials we both agree on (such as are articulated in the Nicene creed, in addition to salvation by grace and the supremacy of Scripture), while rejecting as heretics those who deviate from them, as well as Rome's extraBiblical teaching (prayer to the departed, etc.) And it is actually due to effectively holding another authority as supreme over Scripture that cults deviate from these core essentials, and Rome holds to its unScriptural aberrations.

And while Rome can claim a universal paper unity strictly as regards herself (excluding the many divergent "Catholic" rites, and her sister Orthodox churches, this is no more a proof of her claim to be genuineness than the official unity of another denomination, while her laity manifest a greater degree of disunity on certain core doctrinal and moral issues than SS evangelicals (whom she judges as hardly worthy of the term "churches).

The Roman Catholic claim can't be beat with a stick. The "church" proclaimed itself THE CHURCH, uses the verse that says the church is blameless.... so it can't lose.

This is the core issue, as it presumes that Rome is indeed the N.T. church, and that whoever is given stewardship of the Scriptures is the assuredly infallible interpreter of them, which logic would requires us to submit to Judaism. The question then is, upon which basis are we to know of a surety that Rome is the OTC which she claims to be.

Your answer cannot be one that appeals to the Bible, as that would be an appeal to private interpretation which Rome erroneously interprets 2Pt. 1:20,21 as excluding, and would rely upon Scripture as supreme doctrinal authority.

In addition, the R.C. mind is to have such so allegiance to Rome that it must not objectively examine Rome's claims by the Scriptures, as the noble Bereans did regarding the apostles claims.

“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." “Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII. The consistent believer. p. 35, 1904; Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

The conclusion therefore is that Rome has infallibly defined that she is assuredly infallible, that being whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula, and thus according to her interpretation that she is infallible, only her interpretation can be assuredly infallible. The same is true for her problematic historical argument. And an assent to her claim is necessary to know of a surety that she is the OTC.

Those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture cannot presume to a formulaic assuredly infallibility for themselves, but hold that the Scriptures are assuredly infallible, being the only objective authority that is declared by God to be 100% inspired of Him, and which (contra Rome) has the testimony to prove it. (2Tim. 3:16; Mk. 16:20) (It is Scriptural faith and power that essentially demonstrates authenticity, not a claim to lineage.) And which uniquely is able to make one "throughly furnished unto all good works," but which does not exclude others sources of information or the church magisterium, as it materially provide for the latter, provided that they are subject to Scriptural substantiation. (Acts 17:11)

[daniel1212]

the claims that Scripture is sufficient can only be taken to refer to the existing Scriptures-- that is, anything written after the claim that Scripture is sufficient... is superfluous.

I disagree, as while that may have been Paul's visible reference, his use of "all Scripture" sanctions whatever would belong to that a class of revelation which is assuredly inspired of God.

Peter likewise refers to prophecy of the Scripture as the "more sure word of prophecy" and which had reference to the past, but he also called Paul's writings "Scripture" which would have included prophecy. And it was due to their authority they (not traditions apart from it) were abused by "the unlearned and unstable." (2Pt. 3:16)

[quote]This applies also to the Psalms. The Psalmist, you have pointed out, wrote that the law of the Lord is perfect: the obvious problem here is that David could have been referring to the Penteteuch at best-- according to David, all we need is the Mosaic Law. This would seem to suggest that 61 of the 66 books in your Bible are unnecessary.[quote]

One must ask how the Law even became held to be Scripture, which was due to its accompanying supernatural Divine attestation, and power, like as testified to the claims of Jesus and the apostles, along with conformity with that which has previously been established as Scripture. Thus while the law was held to be wholly inspired of God, so were the prophets, and the psalms, and whatever else came to be manifest as belonging to that class called Scripture. To hold another stream of revelation as wholly inspired of God is to effectively leave the canon open, while the nature of doctrines derived from tradition shows they are based upon the premise of "sola ecclesia."

You ridicule specific Catholic doctrines as unscriptural, but offer no explanation that I can see as to what Paul was referring to when he urged the Thessalonians to hold to oral traditions.

Churches which hold to SS often have traditions which are formally or effectively enjoined upon members, but which are held to be derived from Scripture, from dress standards to Christmas (really). And even Rome's claim for tradition are presented as reliant upon Scripture. But while they really rest upon Rome's claim to authority, what is needed to Scripturally establish Rome's claim that teachings from its uncodified nebulous stream of oral tradition are equal to that of the Bible is to show traditions being referred to which are not penned in Scripture, such as praying to departed souls in Heaven. Etc.

Finally, there is one more point you make which particularly demands a response: you claim that the Roman Catholic argument is circular; if it is, it is nevertheless a wider circle than your own: why do you believe Scripture is sufficient? If it is because Scripture says so, then your argument is circular already!

Rome censures private interpretation as a means of doctrinal certainty, according to her claim to formulaic assured infallibility, by which she infallibly interprets Scripture and history as establishing her as having, while those who hold to SS believe that on earth only the Bible has assured infallibly, which Rome herself affirms, thus she should have no objection to this aspect, as what she objects to is that which Acts 17:11 infers.

But those who hold to SS also see the Scriptures being established by its supernatural testimony, both in life-giving holy effects of regeneration and other miracles, and progressive internal conformity with what came before, and predictive accuracy, etc. In contrast, what they do not see is any claim that all that the church or a church may declare on faith and morals will be infallible, based upon its own say so, and that Israel's magisterium was not, hence prophets preserved the faith (and Luther despite his faults, served as), and that what the N.T.. church taught had sound Scriptural proof, even in disciplinary rulings, (Acts 15) while the legacy of Rome in word and deed is critically contrary to what is needed to establish her claim to supremacy.

[37818]

The Protestant claim doesn't work because the Protestants prove it doesn't work (the scripture is obviously not clear enough for them to agree on everything - and that holds true within every sect). <snip>

The Protestant reformation did not take place until the 1500's. And the Roman State Church did not come to be until around 300 (A.D.) C.E. The holy writings were given by God through the Apostles and the early church prophets within the 1st century. So any claims made by the Roman State Church to be the Catholic Church is a false claim it gave itself and is not truly Christ's church. The genuine church is the one Christ is building (Matthew 16:18) and not upon the person of Peter, but the revelation God gave Peter (v.17, John 6:44, 45. 1 Thessalonians 2:13. John 17:17. Romans 10:17. etc.).

The problem is not Sola Scriptura but men following the teachings of men. The Apostle Paul cited this issue to the Corinthians, " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:12, 13.).

As it is, that you made an argument and complaint alleging Sola Scriptura is the cause of the many Protestant sects, which, BTW, is not true, but rather the sects come about for the same reasons the so-called Catholic Church is in error. Interpretations of man rather than the explicit teachings of God's written word.

And then you didn't even address one argument in MichaelB's article nor even show that what he cited against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter was even false.

[37818]

<snip> . . . the argument regarding Paul's references to "Scripture"-- the argument lies in understanding exactly what Paul meant by "Scriptures"-- Paul was not and could not have been referring to the Gospels or to any other part of the New Testament which had not yet been written. Moreover, the claims that Scripture is sufficient can only be taken to refer to the existing Scriptures-- that is, anything written after the claim that Scripture is sufficient... is superfluous.

While the holy writings which Timothy grew up with was the OT writings. Nevertheless as MichaelB explictly pointed out the holy writings were those which were God breathed. Which would apply to NT writings just the same. So your argument misses this fact.

This applies also to the Psalms. The Psalmist, you have pointed out, wrote that the law of the Lord is perfect: the obvious problem here is that David could have been referring to the Penteteuch at best-- according to David, all we need is the Mosaic Law. This would seem to suggest that 61 of the 66 books in your Bible are unnecessary.

Well you again are wrong here, and your thinking makes Jesus out as being wrong. You fail to know that the Rabbi Jesus referred to a Psalm as Law (John 10:34, "Is it not written in your law, . . .", Psalm 82.). And the justification for this is a book of the Law, Deuteronomy (8:3) which Jesus cited against the Devil in the temptation, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4.).

<snip>. . . reference the argument based on Thessalonians, but dismiss it without considering the applications of that passage-- Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to them either by word of mouth or by letter. . . . <snip>

The Apostle Paul was telling the Thessalonians to follow the Apostles spoken instructions as well as the written. But to assume that the spoken instructions were to be passed down orally by others beyond those to whom the Apostles spoken to, is not so instructed there by Paul. And there is no valid evidence for such an understanding.

Oral Apostolic instructions and church prophets and the word of Knowledge, were the needed gifts of the Spirit in the early church because the NT was yet in the process of being written and being copied and transmitted to other churches.

[Thersites]

While the holy writings which Timothy grew up with was the OT writings. Nevertheless as MichaelB explictly pointed out the holy writings were those which were God breathed. Which would apply to NT writings just the same. So your argument misses this fact.

How do we know that?

Well you again are wrong here, and your thinking makes Jesus out as being wrong. You fail to know that the Rabbi Jesus referred to a Psalm as Law (John 10:34, "Is it not written in your law, . . .", Psalm 82.). And the justification for this is a book of the Law, Deuteronomy (8:3) which Jesus cited against the Devil in the temptation, "Man shall not live by read alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4.).

You miss my point: was the Psalmist wrong? If the Scriptures up to the point where Scripture is called sufficient are in fact sufficient, what is the point of adding anything else?

The Apostle Paul was telling the Thessalonians to follow the Apostles spoken instructions as well as the written. But to assume that the spoken instructions were to be passed down orally by others beyond those to whom the Apostles spoken to, is not so instructed there by Paul. And there is no valid evidence for such an understanding.

Oral Apostolic instructions and church prophets and the word of Knowledge, were the needed gifts of the Spirit in the early church because the NT was yet in the process of being written and being copied and transmitted to other churches.

Why should we believe that the early church wrote down everything important?

[37818]

How do we know that?

That the NT are God breathed writings from early church prophets and some of the Apostles as handed down by churches. The only reason you would not know that is if you reject those NT writings as being God breathed writings.

You miss my point: was the Psalmist wrong?

Not at all.

If the Scriptures up to the point where Scripture is called sufficient are in fact sufficient, what is the point of adding anything else?

The word used was "perfect" referring to God's word as being perfect. The hearing of new revelation did not end until giving of writing called the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1) and its command not to add or take away any revelations to the hearing of it (Revelation 22:18, 19.).

Why should we believe that the early church wrote down everything important?

The early churches didn't, except to make copies of the gospel accounts and letters some of them had received, those writings being God breathed writings, now being our NT. The oral traditions are no good beyond the first generation which heard them. The writings though, live on. (Hebrews 4:12.). Without those writings there would be no genuine Christianity.

[Thersites]

That the NT are God breathed writings from early church prophets and some of the Apostles as handed down by churches. The only reason you would not know that is if you reject those NT writings as being God breathed writings.

Your answer to as to how you know the NT writings are inspired... is that the NT writings are inspired. That's not circular at all...

Not at all.

But the Psalmist was not referring to the New Testament, just as Paul, in his letter to Timothy, was not referring to things which were not yet written. Yet in both these circumstances, the previous writings are seen as "sufficient". David did not have Paul's letter to the Colossians in mind, and Paul did not have 3 John in mind.

The word used was "perfect" referring to God's word as being perfect. The hearing of new revelation did not end until giving of writing called the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1) and its command not to add or take away any revelations to the hearing of it (Revelation 22:18, 19.).

How do you know that God's revelation ended with the Apocalypse of John? How do you know what fits in between Genesis and Revelation?

The early churches didn't, except to make copies of the gospel accounts and letters some of them had received, those writings being God breathed writings, now being our NT. The oral traditions are no good beyond the first generation which heard them. The writings though, live on. (Hebrews 4:12.). Without those writings there would be no genuine Christianity.

Prove it.

[37818]

Your answer to as to how you know the NT writings are inspired... is that the NT writings are inspired. That's not circular at all...

That is not what I was answering, that is a different issue. How do we know any of the writings are inspired? Now if one accepts something as inspired is one thing. That what is accepted as being inspired is really inspired is another. Of course merely accepting the writings as inspired does not make it so. Faith does not create the reality. Rather, faith should be in what is the reality.

Oral traditions suffer worst than any written ones.

The 39 books of the OT are widely accepted as the OT. And the 27 books of the NT are the principle basis of the Christian faith founded in the OT.

But popular acceptance does not make them true.

The writings appear to make truth claims for one. And seem to claim to be actual events in history, for another.

Now can we show, apart from deviant interpretations, that any of the claims made are indeed false? Not being able to do so, that is a plus, but that does not prove the supernatural claims are true.

There seems to be cases of prophecies being shown to be true which defy mere statistical chance.

Most of the writings claim to have God's words in them. Again mere claims do not make them true.

Anyway, there is this issue of divine inspiration of the writings and of any oral traditions. Which of these are to take precedences, if at all?

Jesus is said to have made this claim, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself." (John 7:16, 17.) Jesus claims that one can have personal revelation from God if one is willing to do the instructed will of God.

What is that instructed (doctrine, teaching being the) will of God?

Jesus spoke in His recorded prayer, that knowing God was how to have eternal life (John 17:3.). And that God can only be known through Him (John 14:6.).

Jesus had told Peter, ". . . flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. . . . and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:17, 18.).

Do you have eternal life? and know it, by what you know and believe? (1 John 5:9-13. ". . . He that believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself . . . ."v,10.). (see Romans 8:9 with 1 John 5:12. and 2 Corinthians 13:5.)

The believers personal knowledge cannot be any proof to anyone other than to that believer, One's subjective knowledge cannot be used as any objective evidence.

All oral traditions are subjective knowledge. Only written traditions have any objective substance, being that written documents can have a objective history. A traceability, and that there was always an original document, whether such a document was authentic or not. (". . . or not" as fabrications, such as known apocryphal writings.) The writings regarded as authentic were read in public in the churches.

Oral traditions cannot be authenticated except by written documents (holy scripture teaching that very tradition) or persistent personal revelation, such as what Christ is building His church upon (John 7:17, 1 John 5:9, 10.)

But the Psalmist was not referring to the New Testament, just as Paul, in his letter to Timothy, was not referring to things which were not yet written. Yet in both these circumstances, the previous writings are seen as "sufficient". David did not have Paul's letter to the Colossians in mind, and Paul did not have 3 John in mind.

Are we taking about God breathed writings or the writings being the writings merely of men? In God giving the Psalm to the Psalmist to write that God would not know of Colossians that He had Paul to write or John the 3rd letter? We are talking about God breathed authorship, not merely the human authors God used in writing them.

How do you know that God's revelation ended with the Apocalypse of John?

What does it say? "The revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:1). "For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the tree of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book."
{Revelation 22:18, 19.).

How do you know what fits in between Genesis and Revelation?

There are 39 books used in common by both Jews & Christians. And there are 27 books used in common by professing Christians. All sects, divisions and cults. If those 66 books are not those books then everyone is wrong.

Prove it.

The 66 book Bible is its own proof of this. There has been churches since the time of the Apostles which are not of the Roman Church. The apostolic authority is in the holy scripture, Sola Scriptura. Those writings have in fact been passed down to us today. From God to his prophets and Apostles to the reader of holy scripture.

[justsumguy]

It's still all word games.
"Protestantism historically has held that the text of Scripture is the exclusive infallible authority for all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice."
"The Protestant understanding, known as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or Scripture alone), also contends that God has spoken both sufficiently and with clarity in His word"

Ok...Instead of getting into the mix...let's stick to those two statements.

Saying the text of scripture is the exclusive infallible authority for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice is wonderful except for the fact that the matters mentioned are human matters. If one was to imagine God or Jesus having to look up something in order to make sure they were doing the right thing....great! I have to admit that some of which is defined as Orthodox Christianity seems to be suggesting that the Bible is the authority when it comes to what God can or cannot do.

Anyway...let's say the text of scripture is as noted. Now a person has to read it. Either as they read it or after they read it, they have to interpret the meaning. Then they read more. The little question comes up of how does what they are reading now effect how they understood that which they read previously and vice-versa. Obviously, they are going to have to read the entire thing before being able to apply to all the matters as mentioned.

If they don't, they could be stoning and killing people after reading for a couple hours.

So now the person has read the entire thing and starts writing down all the answers to all the matters. Of course, some matters are considered more important than others.

But what's really great is that God has spoken suffiently and with clarity so there's nothing to worry about...this is going to be easy.

Well...it's easy for all those who say they have it down. It's easy for the followers of those people to say the same thing. And best of all, it's easy to say all the other interpretations are wrong.

What I just described is exactly how it goes down amongst Protestants and again, Protestants did not agree with each other when Luther was alive and certainly do not agree with one another now.

Some of the disagreements within the sects themselves involve some of the most fundamental differences there can be.

The simple little issue of predestination/free-will has resulted in the division of sects.

The claims by Protestants and the RCC on this matter are simply ludicrous because they simply have not, do not and cannot work.

There is truth in the statements but it's not the statements that matter here...

It's how they are applied.

[daniel1212]

As i stated before, the way the Scriptures have been established over time as the word of God is based upon the means Moses and other men of God were regarded as such, which is due to their unique qualities relative to their claims. Moses, Jesus and the apostles did not use Baker's book of apologetics (as useful as it is) to convince people of their authenticity, but God's Divine attestation and their own holiness and conformity with established truth did.

Likewise, acceptance of Christian faith does not rest upon human force , though men have wrongly used it for that purpose, but because it results in realities which correspond to the claims of the Object of faith, and are contingent upon fidelity to Him, which claims and reality surpass in depth and scope that of other religions, beyond their commonalities.

The 66 books of Bible owe their enduring acceptance not to required reading, or mere religious affections, or church decrees, but because they have the power that it claims as whole to have, but which is only experienced by those who obey it (outside ad hoc events), with the heart it fosters and requires, and as they do so, so they have more warrant for more faith. To God be the glory. It has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried, and i come short in the faith i should have.