Refutation of Matt Slick's "Is the Bible Alone Sufficient For Spiritual Truth?"
Matt's words are in blue; mine are in black.
2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition.
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Paul puts Tradition on the same level as Scripture, so it's inspired.
"Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 1:13
Notice that Timothy specifically HEARD the standard of sound teaching, not merely learned or read; this is Tradition. By Matt's logic, Tradition would be the only standard of sound teaching, not Scripture.
The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority.
"There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean.'" - Matthew 2:23
"'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it" - Matthew 23:2-3
"But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!' But these people slander whatever they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that, like irrational animals, they know by instinct. Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah's rebellion." - Jude 9-11
"It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'" - Jude 14-15
Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find the prophecy in Matthew 2:23. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find Moses' seat. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find the story of Michael the archangel contending with Satan or that prophecy of Enoch, yet Jude still appeals to them, just as he appeals to Scripture. Jesus and the New Testament authors did NOT appeal to Scripture alone.
Take, for example, the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4. The Devil tempts Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient.
For those specific issues, yes, Scripture was sufficient, but this in no way implies that Scripture is sufficient for EVERYTHING.
If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing.
It might've been a great place to use Tradition, but he didn't have to. Plus, Satan used Scripture, so Jesus decided to counter Scripture with Scripture. Besides, Jesus DID appeal to Tradition in Matthew 23:2-3, so this incident is irrelevant.
Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examine God's word for the test of truth, not for the traditions of men. Therefore, we can see that the biblical means of determining spiritual truth is by appealing to scripture, not tradition.
No, the biblical means of determining spiritual truth was NOT merely appealing to Scripture rather than Tradition.
First of all, if anyone believed in sola scriptura, it was the Thessalonians, not the Bereans. Many prophecies that the apostles say were fulfilled by Jesus (or those connected to Him) have nothing to do with Jesus in their original context. Here are a few examples.
"All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel', which means, 'God is with us.'" - Matthew 1:22-23
The prophecy here is from Isaiah 7:14, which refers to a boy being born during Isaiah's time, but Matthew, using Tradition (before the New Testament was written down, it was Tradition), reinterpreted it to apply to Jesus.
"This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I have called my son.'" - Matthew 2:15
Matthew interprets this prophecy from Hosea 11:2 as referring to Joseph bringing Jesus and Mary from Egypt to Nazareth after Herod died, but it originally referred to when God brought Israel out of Egypt during the Exodus. Again, in its original context, it had nothing to do with Jesus.
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'Let another take his position of overseer.'" - Acts 1:15
Peter interprets these Old Testament passages as referring to someone taking Judas's place, but in their original context (Psalm 69:25, 109:8), they referred to asking God to punish the psalmist's persecutors and the persecutions endured.
These are only a few examples, but we can see how the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament in light of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, seeing seeds of the New everywhere in the Old. For a Jew to hear Paul preach and convert, he would have had to accept Paul's interpretation of the prophecies, many of which are untenable without first accepting the (at that time) extra-biblical Tradition of Jesus. The Bereans, who accepted Christianity, believed in this Tradition, but the Thessalonians, who rejected Him, didn't. So, the Bereans provide no support for sola scriptura.
Secondly, the early Church did not always go to Scripture alone to settle issues. In Acts 15, a council of the apostles and elders is called to answer the question of whether or not Gentile converts had to follow the Jewish Law. They did not just ask one of the apostles or elders to look it up in Scripture; in fact, the decision is made by Peter WITHOUT appealing to Scripture. Yes, James does quote Scripture afterwards, but the passage he quotes does not have to be interpreted to mean that the Gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish Law. Plus, Peter, who made the authoritative decision (James was just giving his support), did not quote Scripture at all. This decision was then to be obeyed by all Christians; it shows that appealing to Scripture alone without any other infallible source was NOT the biblical way of doing things.
Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. Therefore, it is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for the statement to be true. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles.
Each of these doctrines can be pieced together from various pieces of information. Here's how:
1) You find biblical passages that say the Father is God, passages that say Jesus is God, and passages that say the Holy Spirit is God, and you have the Trinity.
2) You find biblical passages that say Jesus is God and passages that say He is man, and you have His two natures.
3) You find biblical passages that give the Holy Spirit divine attributes, and you can conclude that He is God.
None of these doctrines NEED an explicit biblical statement that says "This is how it is;" rather, they are logical conclusions of certain biblical statements. However, there are no little bits and pieces of sola scriptura that can be scattered throughout Scripture and pieced together to get the whole doctrine; there MUST be a statement that either says that Scripture is sufficient or that all other supposed revelation is invalid.
In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Inerrant Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition--for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7).
Hebrews 7:7 is referring to when Melchizedek blessed Abraham. The type of blessing here is the one a Catholic priest might bestow upon a person or an object; it has nothing to do with authenticating things.
You see, if the Bible said do not trust tradition, then Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalid. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition.
No, Scripture would not be acting as the one and only final authority. If Scripture says that the two are equal, then they are, period. Just because Scripture says that Tradition is valid doesn't mean that Scripture is the only final authority on every single issue, to the exclusion of Tradition. Besides, Tradition is not validated by Scripture alone, as I will show later.
If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16).
Ah, but remember, Scripture does not have to explicitly say, "Tradition is equal to Scripture." Paul says that what he preached orally was the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and Matt has yet to prove that all of what Paul preached was written down. Paul also tells us to obey both the written and oral Traditions, making the two equal (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc.
Sacred Tradition is not merely the traditions of men; it is the teachings of the apostles handed down infallibly throughout the ages by the Church. If God wanted to, He could have His Church faithfully transmit the Traditions that were never written down in Scripture, which is exactly what He has done.
Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?
Their doctrines go against Scripture. Plus, their additional revelation can't be traced back to the apostles in any way, shape, or form.
But, this is irrelevant. First we show that a body of extra-biblical Tradition exists, and then we decide which of these various bodies of Tradition is legitimate.
Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible.
Tradition does NOT contradict Scripture; various Catholic doctrines are whole OTHER issues that I can't get into here without writing 5,000 pages.
The Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? In response, claims do not make it true.
Well, if you accept that the Catholic Church is the true Church, then you would already accept Tradition, so this isn't a good apologetics argument.
Second, even if it were true, and I do not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter in Acts. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?
I'm assuming that Matt is referring to Galatians 2, where Paul rebukes Peter for not eating with the Gentiles. But here's the thing. Nobody says that the Church leaders are immune to all error; rather, they are immune to error in their official teachings. Paul rebuked Peter for a personal practice, not an official teaching.
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it.
The same can be said about Scripture. Protestants say that Christians just recognized the inspiration of Scripture. Well, there was no check on that, so, by Matt's logic, Protestants can't know what is and isn't Scripture.
Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture.
Well, here's the thing. You have the pre-New Testament Church following Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and the Church (Acts 15). As time went on and the New Testament was being written, there were still references to Tradition (2 Timothy 1:13, 2:2), with no references to all of the apostles' teachings being written down in Scripture. Even after Scripture was complete, we see (from the Church Fathers) that Christians still followed Tradition and the Church in addition to Scripture, with no sign of sola scriptura. So we see that it has always been the belief of the true Church that Scripture and Tradition are equal.
Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition.
Yes, Scripture does validate Tradition, but, as I said before, if Scripture says that Tradition is God's word, then it is, no questions asked. Plus, Scripture merely testifies to the validity of Tradition; it is not the only way that we can know that Tradition is valid.
Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
There are two problems here:
1) If you accept this, you will already accept Tradition, so this isn't a good argument.
2) Secondly, and more importantly, the Church is not above the Scriptures. She merely holds up the truth and infallibly proclaims what God's word teaches (1
Timothy 3:15). She does NOT claim to be above Scripture.
Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible.
"The Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition." This is a very vague statement. What does Matt think we Catholics mean by that? The Bible is written Tradition (Tradition being the teachings of the apostles), and I don't think he would disagree with that. The disagreement is about whether or not it was all written down, so this can't be what Matt means.
I think he means that the canon of Scripture was derived from Tradition. But, he says, this is false. "The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible," and I agree. The Church has the authority to declare what is and isn't true doctrine, and she used that authority to declare the canon of Scripture. The early Christians didn't "just recognize" the inspiration of Scripture; different churches disagreed with one another about the canon. Some included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, and Revelation barely made it into the official canon.
They were in and of themselves authoritative.
I agree; the Church simply declared to the people what was already true.
Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater.
Again, Matt takes Hebrews 7:7 completely out of context.
