Expert: J.M.J. West - 6/1/2011

Question
Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.


The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.


Mark 7:13=YOU HAVE MADE THE WORD OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT THROUGH YOUR TRADITIONS

Are you beginning to see that catholic practices open up a HOST of theological problems?

Answer
Shawn,

Thank you for your question.  I think your problem stems from a misunderstanding of the Catholic position, which holds that scripture is the highest authority, unique in being direct revelation by God ("Prima Scriptura," you might say).

But to assert "Sola Scriptura" is contradictory, in part because of the reason you listed (i.e., the principle that the bible is the sole rule for faith not being stated in the bible, which is the sole rule of faith).  But it goes deeper than that.

I actually just had a month-long dialogue with a fellow Christian friend of mine on precisely this issue.

We both agree that scripture is inerrant, and God-breathed, etc.  But when I asked him one question, he would storm off angry and unable to answer, because outside of apostolic succession, there is no answer.  That question is:  "How do you know that Mark is scripture?"

In fact, I made a video illustrating roughly our conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWyaFPGeusg

The point is this:  Scripture says all scripture is inspired/God-Breathed/infallible, etc.

So, IF is is scripture, THEN it is inspired/God-Breathed/infallible.  
But, knowing this maxim does not answer the question "Is ______ scripture."  It only tells us the qualities of the text in question if in fact it is scripture.  

Jesus didn't leave a list of books to be on the watch for before he ascended (Acts 1), nor did Peter or Paul or John or Matthew or Mark or Luke pen a table of contents for the bible.  You trust those books belong there based upon the AUTHORITY of the old celibate men who declared them to belong as scripture 1700+ years ago.  That is tradition.  The canon of scripture IS tradition, and it is either infallible because the Church has that charism that she claims, or it is fallible.

If it is infallible, great.  Then you can know that Mark (or Philemon, or Revelation) are scripture.  BUT, if the canon of the scriptures is fallible, then you have at best a list of books that you THINK are inspired.  You have "very good theological treatises," like Augustine's Confessions.  Great spiritual reading overall, but not scripture (or at least, you are unable to know that it is scripture, and thus ought not to treat it like scripture).  For if it is not scripture, then it is not inspired/God-Breathed/infallible, and it may contain errors.  To treat a text like scripture when it is not known to be is dangerous territory.

So, how do you know that Mark is scripture?  (Watch that video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWyaFPGeusg).

Furthermore, Mark 7:13, which you cite, shows Christ chiding the Pharisees for making traditions that usurped the highest laws of God (Love God and Neighbor, especially parent), like the Corban law, in dispute here.  I this "tradition" one would make a public declaration of giving all of one's goods to the temple, leaving nothing for the care of one's own parents.  Thus they would use this law to circumvent obeying one of the "big 10", exchanging their duty to their parents for a display of public piety.

But not all traditions are bad.  Hence in 2 Thess. 2:15, Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition.  He says "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter."  This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other.  

Shawn,

I hope this was helpful.  Feel free to follow up.  

Peace of Christ,

-J.M.J. West