First, I would like to define two terms I will be using, sola scriptura and Tradition.
My understanding of the doctrine of sola scriptura is that all doctrines needed for salvation are formally in Scripture (we don't need an infallible Church or Tradition), the doctrines in Scripture are sufficiently perspicuous (clear) so that a person of average intelligence can clearly understand them, and that Scripture is the only source of infallible truth about our faith (the church or tradition may help us, but they are not infallible). That is my understanding of sola scriptura, although I think the exact definition may vary a bit from denomination to denomination.
Tradition is the rule that Catholics use to interpret the bible. Rather than being information that's separate from the bible, it is complementary to the bible the way an instruction manual is complementary to a piece of machinery. While all the materials are in the machinery (as in the bible), you need the instruction manual to tell you how to use it (as you need Tradition). Let me give an example of how Tradition works. While there is no explicit Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception, Catholics can deduce this doctrine by interpreting Scripture according to Tradition. Using typology (the study of how the Old Testament foreshadows the New) to compare Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, we see that the Ark of the Covenant was too holy even to be touched, so Mary must also have been extremely holy. Now, I don't expect any Protestants to believe in the Immaculate Conception (especially because I just gave the worst defense of it ever), but I am just trying to show how Scripture and Tradition are related.
Next, I would like to give some biblical proof for Tradition.
While there are many negative uses of the word "tradition" in the bible (such as Matthew 15:3), it is used positively three times:
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you." - 1 Corinthians 11:2
"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
"Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us." - 2 Thessalonians 3:6
From these three verses we learn that Paul not only commanded Christians to keep the Tradition, but he also told them to keep away from those who don't. Now, I would like to focus in on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 a bit more.
Notice how Paul says "traditions�either by word of mouth or by our letter." He is telling the Thessalonians to keep both the oral ("word of mouth") AND written ("our letter") traditions, not just the written ones! How do we know that these oral traditions were different from the written ones? First of all, when Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, most of the New Testament had not yet been written; most of the Gospel was only oral. Secondly, Paul says that the message came in two ways: word of mouth and letter. Notice that he doesn't say Gospel; they had not been written yet. The whole message of Jesus is not contained in letters, so there HAD to have been a separate oral tradition. Up until here, I think that most Protestants would agree with me. The next question is how we know that this separate oral Tradition still exists today. As I will try to show, Scripture never says that this command has ended or that all the traditions were written down.
"But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'" - Matthew 28:19-20
While John 21:25 doesn't prove much by itself, it becomes a fairly powerful verse when coupled with Matthew 28:19-20. Even though John 21:25 doesn't explicitly say that Jesus taught other things that weren't written down, it follows logically that since He did many things that weren't written down, he also taught many things that weren't written down. Now, Protestants will counter by saying that the bible does not contain every single saying of Jesus, but only the one's essential for salvation. However, in Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus commands His apostles to go and preach EVERYTHING that He had taught them, not just certain "essential" doctrines.
Next, I will give some verses that Protestants use to try to prove sola scriptura and show how they don't work.
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
This is the passage that is used most in support of sola scriptura. First, I think both Catholics and Protestants agree that it's not Scripture that makes people equipped for every good work; rather, it is the teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that it is used for. Unless you use your bible, it won't help you; it's not going to stand up and start preaching to you. Next, notice that Paul says that Scripture is "useful" for the teaching, reproof, etc. The Greek word "ophelimos" means "useful" or "profitable," which implies insufficiency. If something is merely useful or profitable for a task, then it is not completely sufficient. Let me give an analogy. A scalpel is useful and profitable for surgery, but it is not sufficient. A doctor needs more than just a scalpel. The same is true for Scripture. It is useful and profitable, but you need something else (Tradition). If Paul had wanted to say that Scripture was sufficient, he would've used a term other than "ophelimos."
Now, let's use the "if something is profitable, then it is sufficient" interpretation on other bible passages and see what the outcome is. First, let's take James 1:3-4.
"because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing."
James is telling the reader that endurance's full effect makes us "mature and complete, lacking in nothing." This is very strong language. The Greek words for "mature" and "complete," "teleios" and holokleros," are stronger than the Greek words for "complete" and "equipped," "artios" and "exartizo," used in 2 Timothy 3:17. If we interpret this passage the same way Protestants interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then we would come to the conclusion that all we need is endurance and nothing else, not even God's grace. This, of course, is absurd, and we know that endurance produces those things not by itself, but when working with other things. One objection may be that James is talking about suffering, and all we really need in times of suffering is endurance. This would be true if James was referring to the times DURING the suffering, but he's not. He says that suffering produces endurance, implying that the endurance comes AFTER the suffering.
Next, let's look at Colossians 4:12.
"He [referring to a man named Epaphras] is always wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in everything that God wills."
If we use the "useful=sufficient" interpretation for this verse, we would say that Epaphras's prayers were all the Colossians needed. Again, this is absurd because we know that Epaphras's prayers helped the Colossians, but they needed more than just his prayers to be saved.
Next, let's take a look at 2 Timothy 2:21.
"All who cleanse themselves of the things I have mentioned [referring to unholy things] will become special utensils, dedicated and useful to the owner of the house, ready for every good work."
Again, if we use the "useful=sufficient" interpretation, we would come to the conclusion that all we need to do is stay away from unholy things. This, of course, is again absurd; we also need to stay with things that are holy and do holy deeds.
"Ok," you might say, "so maybe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn't necessarily mean that Scripture is sufficient, but Paul only calls Scripture inspired (literally, "God-breathed"), but he says nothing of Tradition. If Tradition is equal to Scripture, he definitely would've mentioned it, but he didn't." However, if you read carefully starting from verse 14, you will realize that Paul DOES mention Tradition (or, at the very least, another source equal to Scripture).
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:14-17
Notice that Paul mentions two sources of authority, Scripture and Tradition:
1) "knowing from whom you have learned it"
- This is Apostolic Tradition. Timothy learned the Gospel from Paul, and because Paul was an apostle, his message was true. Notice that this is
SEPARATE from Scripture; even without Scripture, the apostolic message would still be true.
2) "and how from childhood, you have known the sacred writings�"
- This is Scripture. Notice that Paul first talks about Tradition, then says "and�Scripture." They are two equal authorities!
In addition, Paul twice tells Timothy to hold firm to the teachings he has heard.
"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
"You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well." - 2 Timothy 2:1-2
Notice that Paul instructs Timothy to hold firm to the teachings he has HEARD, not merely learned or read. If Paul was referring to the teachings in Scripture, then why did Paul SPECIFICALLY say that Timothy HEARD those teachings and not just that he learned them? Since Tradition is unwritten (at least it was back then; today it is in the writings of various Church Fathers and such), the only way for Timothy to learn it was to hear it.
Now, Protestants might counter by saying that what Paul passed on orally was not Apostolic Tradition, but just mere customs. This, however, flies in the face of 2 Timothy 1:13, where Paul tells Timothy to "hold to the standard of sound teaching." Wait a minute; does this sound familiar? Remember, Tradition isn't information apart from the bible; rather, it is a way of interpreting the bible. Tradition is the "standard of sound teaching" that Catholics follow, and Paul specifically tells us to hold to it!
The Greek phrase used for "All Scripture," "pasa graph," actually means "Every Scripture." If Paul had wanted to say "The whole of Scripture," he would've said something like "hai pasai graphai." This is something even Protestant apologist James White has admitted. So, Paul actually said, "Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful�etc." So, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it proves too much; it proves the sufficiency of every book or passage of Scripture! He was saying that EVERY Scripture was useful for teaching, which could make the man of God complete, and nobody would say that every single Scripture is sufficient by itself.
Finally, not every book of the bible had been written when Paul wrote 2 Timothy. Timothy had, at the most, the Old Testament, some of the epistles (probably all or most of Paul's), and maybe one or two of the Gospels. If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches sola scriptura, then it teaches sola parts-of-the-bible. Paul was definitely not referring to every book of the bible, so he couldn't have been referring to sola scriptura.
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." - 1 Corinthians 4:6 (King James Version)
This is another verse that is often used to support sola scriptura; Protestants focus in on the phrase "not to think of men above that which is written." "That which is written" is interpreted as the bible, so this verse supposedly means that we shouldn't think beyond what Scripture says. This is one of the most difficult verses in the bible to interpret, and various theories have been proposed about how it should be interpreted. One of them, of course, is sola scriptura.
Before we understand what "that which is written" means, we must first understand what "these things" that Paul transferred to himself and Apollos are. "These things" refers to what Paul wrote immediately preceding 1 Corinthians 4:6 (1 Corinthians 3:21-23, 4:1-5) where he tells the Corinthians not to divide into factions over human leaders because we are all one in Christ. Knowing this, we can see right away that 1 Corinthians 4:16 isn't even in the context of the sufficiency of Scripture; Paul is talking about one issue (dividing into factions), not everything we need to know about salvation. Also, 1 Corinthians 4:6 CAN'T teach sola scriptura because most of the New Testament hadn't been written yet!
So, what WAS Paul talking about? There are a few theories, but I think that two of them stand out as the most probable. First, there was enough written about man's sinful nature in the Old Testament so that the Corinthians should've known better than to divide into factions over human leaders. Secondly, he could've been talking about what he wrote immediately preceding 1 Corinthians 4:6 (1 Corinthians 3:18-23, 4:1-5), in which he said not to divide into factions over human leaders. Personally, I think the first interpretation is more likely, but whichever one you choose, it's pretty clear that Paul was NOT talking about sola scriptura.
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." - Acts 17:11 (King James Version)
Personally, I've never really understood why this verse is used to support sola scriptura. This passage refers to the Bereans, who were called more noble than the Thessalonians because they received the Gospel and searched the Scriptures to see if it was true. Why did they search the Scriptures? To see if Jesus really DID fulfill the Messianic prophecies. How does this support sola scriptura? I honestly have no idea. How could the Bereans have believed in sola scriptura before the New Testament was even written? James White himself has said that sola scriptura was invalid during times of inscripturation, so I honestly haven't the slightest clue how anybody can get sola scriptura out of this verse. If the Old Testament were sufficient for knowledge about Jesus (which is what this passage would prove), then the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-35 would not have needed Philip's help in interpreting it. All Christians are encouraged to read and examine Scripture daily, but we don't all believe in sola scriptura.
"'You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.' Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!'" - Mark 7:8-9
While the whole passage is Mark 7:1-23 (also Matthew 15:1-20), this one little piece pretty much sums it up. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for rejecting God's commandments for the sake of keeping their traditions, and it is often argued that Catholics do the same. It is argued that Jesus was saying that tradition should never be elevated to the same level as Scripture because it is inferior. Now, let's take a look at what exactly Jesus was condemning.
Jesus condemned holding HUMAN traditions equal to God's word, which is obviously wrong. However, if Catholic Tradition is indeed God's word, then it's not in the same group as the Pharisees' human traditions.
"He said to them, 'It is written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer"; but you are making it a den of robbers.'" - Matthew 21:19
"As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, 'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way;'" - Mark 1:2
These two verses, along with a multitude of others, show Jesus appealing to the authority of Scripture. While Jesus constantly appealed to Scripture, not once did He appeal to Tradition. Many Protestants use this to try and prove that Jesus only believed in the authority of Scripture, and not in that of Tradition. There are, however, two problems with this argument. First, we can use a similar argument against Protestantism: Jesus told His apostles to go out and preach the Gospel, but He never told them to write any Scripture. Does this necessarily disprove sola scriptura? No (although I think it is a good argument, considering that, as far as I know, nowhere does the bible say that the apostles were to write Scripture). Secondly, the apostles quoted from Tradition.
"But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring condemnation of slander against him, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" - Jude 9
"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
Both of these passages are from the Epistle of Jude, with the first one being a quote from the Assumption of Moses, and the second quote being from the Book of Enoch. In his letter, Jude warns about people who disrespect Church authority and uses various examples from the bible plus these two from Tradition to show that they are wrong. He makes no distinction between the examples from Scripture and those from Tradition, implying that they are both of equal 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
In Matthew's Gospel, he often quoted from Old Testament prophecies to try and show that Jesus fulfilled them. Where is this quote found in the Old Testament? It's not, yet Matthew still used it. He makes no distinction between this quote and the Scriptural ones, again implying that Scripture and Tradition are equal.
