1]The Word of God is indeed the sole rule of faith for Christians today. The question to be asked is did Jesus or any of his apostles say the only way future generations were to receive the Word of God is by scripture? Let us first examine how Jesus commissioned his apostles to preach the gospel. Prior to his death, and after his resurrection he commissioned his apostles to do several things and he made several promises. He promised the Holy Spirit to guide them (the apostles) to all truth (Jn 16:13)"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26). Notice he said the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles to all truth, and they would remember all that I have said to you. If anyone wants to know what Jesus taught, one must hear all of what was taught, as this teaching is guided by the Holy Spirit. This reflects Jesus earlier teaching: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Lk 10:16, cf. Mt 10:40. Nothing about writing.

2]What did Jesus commission his apostles to do? During the last supper, he commissioned his apostles to celebrate the Eucharist, the life giving sacrament of his body and blood. (Lk 22:19-22; 1 Cor 11:23-30; Mt. 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-25). This sacrament that he commissioned forgives sins (Mt. 26:28) and brings eternal life (John 6:51-58). He commissioned his apostles to call people for repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Mk 16:15-16; Mt 28:19). He gives them the power to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). He promised to build his church and gave the keys exclusively to Peter (Mt 16:18-19), he later gave to the other apostles the authority to bind and loose as well (Mt. 18:18). He also commissioned the apostles to "observe all that I have commanded you (Mt. 28:20)." Anyone can see that here Christ makes very important commissions for the apostles and future generations for passing on the gospel. One thing is lacking: A commission to write anything. If Christ saw that future generations would only be bound by scripture, why in the four gospels did he never commission his apostles to write a thing? He commissioned all his apostles to teach orally. Only in the book of Revelation did Jesus tell anybody to write (Rev. 1:19), and the canonicity of that book was in doubt for centuries, and in fact verified only by apostolic tradition. Will my opponent who will admit that of the 12 apostles, only Matthew, John and Peter wrote anything, accuse the 9 other apostles of not doing their job because they didn't write? Didn't Jesus promise the Holy Spirit to them as well? They did do their job, to establish churches, pass on the sacraments established by Christ, orally preach the gospel, and commission others to do so as well.

3]I ask my opponent, using the New Testament, what is the New Testament, and what is the basis for deciding what it is? Since the proposition is that "they claim for themselves to be the sole standard of authority for Christians", we must know what are the contents of this sole authority. Do any of the gospel writers, identify themselves as apostles or commissioned by apostles? No. Moving along to the epistles, doesn't Peter write that Paul's letters are inspired, and thus we should take them as inspired? (cf. 2 Peter 3:15). I will comment on 2 Peter later and show how it disproves Sola Scriptura, but in regards to Paul's letters being scripture, Peter does not write one word on what the contents of Paul's letters are, and makes no specific references to for example, Paul's letter to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. How do we know that Peter is not referring to Paul's earlier letter to the Corinthians, that we have no record of? Paul saw his earlier letter as just as binding as the canonical first letter to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 5:9 we read: "I wrote to you in my letter (prior to 1 Corinthians) not to associate with immoral men". What about Paul's letter to the Laodiceans mentioned in the second part of Colossians 4:16: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea." Notice that this second letter from Laodicea is put on the same level as the New Testament letter to the Colossians. These letters we do not have, are on the same level in Paul's mind as his canonical letters. The Achilles heel of Sola Scriptura: No internal record of the contents of the New Testament. As James Akins writes "The Protestant apologist is in a fix. In order to use sola scriptura he is going to have to identify what the scriptures are, and since he is unable to do this from scripture alone, he is going to have to appeal to things outside of scripture to make his case, meaning that in the very act of doing this he undermines this case. There is no way for him to escape the canon of tradition." Neither is there a list of contents of the Old Testament. On this count alone, the proposition falls.

4]If you have a church commissioned by Jesus to bind and loose (Mt. 16:18-19; Mt. 18:17-18) with the authority of God behind it to guide into all truth (Jn 16:13; 14:26) then we have something solid to stand on. Paul does not write scripture is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Paul writes instead: "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15. If as Protestantism charges, Catholicism went into error on doctrinal matters, then Paul made a mistake in calling the church the pillar and bulwark of truth. Notice, it does not say pillar of truth only as long as it teaches scripture. The only way that we know who wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and that Paul and Peter were the authors of the other New Testament books is oral tradition; passed on down through the centuries. The Council of Rome in 382, led by Pope Damsus, confirmed the whole extent of the New Testament canon. The Councils of Carthage and Hippo, 393 and 397 AD also defined what the scriptures were (confirmed by Pope Innocent I, 419). Before these Councils, were varying lists held by individuals who would invariably exclude some books (such as 2 Peter, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude) and include some letters as scripture (such as Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians, Didache, Barnabus, etc). None of those who produced these varying scripture lists said that scripture was the sole rule of faith. If Sola Scriptura is true, why so much confusion on the contents of scripture for centuries? But with an authoritative church to help interpret those scriptures and pass on as well the unwritten truths of the faith, then we have a fulfillment of Jesus' promises (Jn 14:26, John 16:13, Mt. 28:20) to preserve the truth and provide protection from error.

5]I have limited space, so as I further expose the errors of Sola Scriptura, it will be hard to completely show its deficiencies. Protestant apologist J.I. Packer explains what it is: "What does sola scriptura mean? That the bible is the only word of God, the only guide for conscience in the church. It is the only source of true knowledge and of God's grace. It is the only qualified judge of the church's testimony and teaching." To paraphrase Packer, when the inspired writers died the only thing binding on future generations is supposedly the written Word of God; however, neither Jesus or any of the apostles give any hint of this idea.

6]We see in the bible: 1) Jesus and the apostles teaching as binding truth things nowhere recorded in Old Testament scriptures. Truths were passed on orally, after the death of the authors of the Scripture; 2) The binding Word of God for future generations includes apostolic oral tradition.

7]1) a) Mt. 2:23 "And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." We see prophetic truth passed on that the messiah would be a Nazarene. We nowhere see in the Old Testament this prophecy. Oral tradition at work. b) Jude 14-15 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." Here Jude references Enoch (Gen 5) who was born years before Noah making a prophetic utterance nowhere found in scripture. This is a reference found in the book of Enoch, written 200 BC or so. How was this prophetic utterance passed on for centuries? By oral tradition. No one considers Enoch canonical, but Jude considers this portion as reliable, and divine revelation. c) Matthew 23:2-3 Jesus 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." This teaching on Moses seat Jesus finds as binding, even though he later castigates their hypocryisy. No Old Testament scripture refers to Moses' seat. David Palm writes: "As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Ab“te indicates, the Jews understood that God's revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected. Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself." d) Paul writes of the people in Exodus, 1 Cor. 10:4: "and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ." The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. As Palm writes: "Paul does not hesitate to draw on stock oral Tradition to illustrate and enhance his presentation of the gospel." e) Other allusions to reliance on Oral Tradition with no dependence on the Old Testament include (but not limited to, and space precludes comment) Jude 9, Hebrews 11:36, 2 Tim 3:8-9, Acts 7:52-53, Gal. 3:19, Heb. 2:2-3, James 5:17. The New Testament reliance on these oral traditions shows that divine revelation can be passed on and relied on to infallibly pass on truth even if they were not recorded in scripture.

8]2) In order to prove Sola Scriptura, I am sure my opponent will make many references to the term Word of God and try to use the term in such a way that limits it to scripture. I ask you to examine his references (I have not seen his opening statement yet) because in most cases they will be irrelevant. In the New Testament the term Word of God will most often refer to the oral proclamation of the gospel. That is actually part of oral tradition, not scripture. For example the term word of God is used 12 times in the book of Acts (Acts 4:31, Acts 6:2, Acts 6:7, Acts 8:14, Acts 11:1, Acts 12:24, Acts 13:5, Acts 13:7, Acts 13:46, Acts 17:13, Acts 18:11, Acts 20:32). All 12 times refer to the oral proclamation of the gospel. When Paul commends the Ephesians to the Word of God in Acts 20:32, did he leave them a letter? No, he spent 3 years declaring the whole counsel of God to them, orally (Acts 20:27, 31). That was the Word of God they were to hold fast to. In fact, he even shows a reliance on apostolic oral tradition himself by mentioning a saying of Jesus nowhere found in scripture (Acts 20:35). This use of the term Word of God reflects a prophecy showing that in the New Covenant the words would be handed down orally: Isaiah 59:20-21 "And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord. And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the Lord: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children's children, says the Lord, from this time forth and for evermore." Paul passes this oral word to Timothy, who is to guard this deposit of faith through the help of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 1:13-14). Faith comes by hearing, not reading the word of God (Rom. 10:17). How long will this oral word of God last? 1 Peter 1:24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord abides for ever." That word is the good news which was preached to you." Forever. Yes it references Isaiah, but Peter is calling upon Isaiah as a witness to his preached apostolic witness of Christ: oral tradition.

9]Apostolic tradition must be adhered to. Not only that but the bible itself is tradition, according to Paul's own writing: 2 Thes. 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." If we read the context of Chapter 2, Paul writes to prevent people from falling into deception (vv. 3-12). What is to prevent these people from being deceived? Paul commands the Thessalonians to hold to the oral tradition alongside that which was written, on the same level. He reiterates it in 2 Thes. 3:6. 1 Cor. 11:2 is another reference that shows the binding authority of oral tradition.

10]Paul in 2 Timothy 1:13-2:2 shows how this word of God is to be passed on. We saw that Timothy was given the oral word of God from Paul and is to guard this deposit of faith (2 Tim. 1:13-14). This is the end of Paul's life (2 Tim 4:6-7). It is a perfect opportunity to preach sola scriptura. Instead, he writes in 2 Tim 2:2: "and what you (second generation) have heard from me (1st generation) before many witnesses entrust to faithful men (third generation) who will be able to teach others (fourth generation) also." Timothy is Paul's spiritual son, the second generation (2 Tim 2:1). Timothy is charged to pass on this oral word of God to the third generation. They are then entrusted with this same oral word of God to pass on to the fourth generation. This thus shows apostolic succession through four generations. Timothy was ordained (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6) to pass on this teaching and authority. Paul gives no hint that after he dies, the following generations are only to rely upon written scripture. Titus likewise was to establish churches (Tit 1:5) as he had Apostolic authority as well. Jesus promised to be with this church for not just four generations, but until the end of the age (Mt. 28:20, 16:18).

11]Jude 11 condemns the example of Korah's rebellion (Num. 16:1-35). Korah said we can take upon ourselves authority (Num. 16:1-3). He proclaimed that he was just as holy as Moses and Aaron and sought the ministerial priesthood himself (Num. 16:3, 10), beyond the universal priesthood given to the Jews (Exod. 19:6). They wanted to worship on their own authority and not submit to Moses. God punished not only Korah, and his followers (Num 16:31-34) but also those who complained about it (Num. 16:46-49). Jude directly ties this rebellion to the New Testament. Sola scriptura followers take it upon themselves to privately interpret God's word, as did Korah and his rebels, who were condemned by God. Why did Jude warn the church against those who rejected the authority of the New Testament Church's hierarchy if (as Sola Scriptura preaches) the New Testament Church has no authoritative hierarchy?

12]2nd Peter also devastates sola scriptura. 2 Peter 2:1:19-2:2 reads: "And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." Peter condemns private interpretation, as scripture comes from the Holy Spirit. You will notice that just after condemning private interpretation, Peter castigates false prophets and heresies. Private interpretation, the heart of sola scriptura, directly leads to heresies. Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16, "in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures." Sola Scriptura in action has proved Peter true: People come, claim to speak for the truth and the Holy Spirit, cloak themselves in bible verses, and secretly (by cloaking their faulty interpretation in bible verses) bring in destructive heresies. An authoritative interpreter, guided by the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised), is needed to preserve the apostolic truth from this twisting. That is the Church.

13]Sola scriptura has led to a plethora of competing denominations, all claiming to have the truth, and thus forming their own tradition. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press', 1983), as of 1982 there were 20,800 Christian denominations with a projected 22,190 by 1985. All but a handful are Protestant. With 270 new denominations each year (Dave Barrett, Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 15-18) by now there would be 28,000 denominations if the rate continued. All follow a tradition, the only question one has, is which tradition do you follow? If one is a Lutheran, one believes Luther's tradition started in the 16th century. If one follows the Church of Christ doctrine, one believes that this tradition which started in the 19th century, suddenly interpreted scripture correctly. Somehow, nobody else could find this truth. The same with Pentecostals, Baptists, SDA's, Presbyterians, etc. Sola Scriptura causes confusion and new, man-made traditions (cf. Mt. 15:3; Mk 7:8). The Holy Spirit can not be an author of such confusion (1 Cor 14:33). The question is: Can you trace your tradition back to Jesus and his church, or a man-made one started more than a millenia after Pentecost?

14]Via the New Testament we have seen each of the following points destroy sola scriptura: 1) When Jesus commissioned the 12 apostles in the gospels, never did he order them to write scripture, or hold future generations bound to only scripture; 2) Scripture itself does not explain what the contents of scripture are. Church tradition is what revealed infallibly to mankind the contents of scripture; 3) He gave a visible church, a pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), so that whatever the church binds and looses on earth, God binds in heaven (Mt 16:18-19; Mt 18:15-18). God does not bind himself to doctrinal error. 4) Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition started in the 16th century, the type of tradition that Paul condemns (Gal 1:9; Col. 2:8). 5) Jesus and the apostles show reliance on extrascriptural revelation as divine revelation; 6) The Word of God for future generations is both oral and written; 7) The attack on Apostolic Oral Tradition is unbiblical. 8) Private interpretation is anti-biblical; What is the Result of Sola Scriptura? 9) Numerous man-made traditions, errors and denominations. Next segment we will see more biblical data reinforce the above as well as prove more errors in Sola Scriptura.

Back to Debate Page