Reply to My Brother on Sola Scriptura

A letter to my brother in which I reply to his 

objections to my treatise on sola Scriptura

Gary Hoge

Dear Brother,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my sola Scriptura paper. I appreciated your insightful observations, and I would like to offer my own comments on some of the points you raised. First of all, you said,

You state that Sola Scriptura is “probably the foundational doctrine of Protestantism.” This is of course not true. . . . Perhaps you meant to identify the main point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. Again, I don’t think that Sola Scriptura is it. Instead, I submit that the key difference is our respective beliefs regarding the means by which one is saved. Protestants staunchly affirm that “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8-10). Catholics, by practice if not by doctrine, maintain that one must do good works, in addition to receiving Christ, to be truly saved.

You make several points here; I’ll take them in order. First, what I meant about sola Scriptura being the foundational doctrine of Protestantism is that it is the doctrine from which all other distinctly “Protestant” doctrines flow. It is the doctrine that’s responsible for every other distinctive doctrine you have. Whatever doctrines exist in Protestantism that are not shared by Catholicism (and we do share many doctrines) exist because somebody, somewhere, came up with a novel (and therefore probably wrong) interpretation of Scripture. Those distinctly Protestant doctrines (sola fide, symbolic Eucharist and baptism, congregational church government, private interpretation, once-saved-always-saved, etc.) can only exist because of sola Scriptura. None of those doctrines existed for the first one-thousand five-hundred years of Christian history. Therefore, if anything other than Scripture were considered, they would have to be rejected. But under sola Scriptura, as long as someone can point to a verse somewhere (however wrongly he may interpret it), that’s good enough. Of course, the result of this principle was not difficult to predict. If you let 500 people interpret the Bible on their own, you’ll soon have 500 denominations. This is the fruit of sola Scriptura. Even as early as 1525 Martin Luther wrote that there were “nearly as many sects as there are heads,” a description that comes closer to being literally true with each passing year.

The idea that we are saved by something other than grace is not the “key difference” between Protestants and Catholics, it is the key misunderstanding that Protestants (and even some Catholics) have about Catholicism. It’s true that Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith alone (because it’s unscriptural¹), but they certainly do believe in salvation by grace alone, and salvation by Christ alone. So if you want to learn the truth about Catholic doctrines, you really shouldn’t rely on the opinions of nominal, perhaps disgruntled, former Catholics. You should no more seek out their opinion to learn the truth about Catholicism than you would seek out a backslidden Mormon in a Salt Lake City bar to learn the truth about Mormonism. No, if you want to learn about Mormon doctrine, you go to the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. In the same way, if you want to learn about Catholic doctrine, go to the decrees of the Council of Trent, or Vatican II, or to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. In other words, go directly to the source.

If you do, you’ll find that in Catholicism good works have absolutely nothing to do with coming to Christ and getting saved. The Council of Trent declared, “None of those things which precede justification--whether faith or works--merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”² That is binding dogma for a Catholic. Anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who says otherwise is wrong.

Good works play no role at all in coming to Christ and getting saved, but they do play a role in the “working out” of our salvation. The Bible is quite clear that those who are saved are expected to perform good works, and to avoid sin. But the power to perform good works and to avoid sin always comes from God, never from ourselves. As Jesus said, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). But with Jesus “I can do everything through him who gives me strength” (Phil. 4:13). The Council of Orange declared that “a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it” (Canon 20).

Every good thing we do is completely motivated, enabled, and completed by God’s grace working in us. As Paul said, “It is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil. 2:13). Under no circumstances are our good works (including the avoidance of sin) to be regarded as self-originated or self-empowered, as if we could do anything meritorious on our own. Further, our good works are not something we do to add to the work of Christ (as if Christ’s work were somehow insufficient), they are themselves a part of Christ’s work; they are His grace working through us. Ephesians 2:10 says, “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do,” and Jesus said, “Whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3:21).

* * * * *

You said,

The point of Sola Scriptura is not that the Bible is a complete record of God’s dealings with man, but rather that it contains all we need to know for faith and practice, by which we will be led to Christ.

Where does the Bible say it “contains all we need to know for faith and practice”? And if it doesn’t say that, why should I believe it? You cited three verses to support this doctrine. I’ll save the first one for last, because it’s really the only one of the three that’s relevant to this issue. The second verse you cited, Gal. 1:8-9, says that anybody who is preaching another gospel should be condemned. I agree, but so what? What does that have to do with the question of whether the true gospel is entirely contained within the pages of the New Testament? (By the way, if you had tried to preach such things as sola fide, sola Scriptura, symbolic Eucharist, and symbolic baptism to the Galatians, they would have rejected them as being a “different gospel,” as would every generation of Christians before the sixteenth century). 

The third verse you cited was John 5:39-40, 46-47, in which Jesus chided the Jews because they thought (mistakenly) that by the Scriptures they had eternal life, but the Scriptures pointed to Jesus. The Old Testament Scriptures do point to Jesus; I certainly don’t deny that. But so what? That’s part of their function. In the apostolic era, though, the standard of truth was the gospel message, and that message was taught orally. Where in the New Testament does it say that all of the gospel message was reduced to writing?

Now, the first verse you cited really is relevant, but I don’t think it teaches what you think it does. First of all, as I pointed out in my paper, Paul does not declare that the God-breathed writings are “sufficient.” He says they are “useful.” There’s a huge difference between those two words. Something can be useful for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient by itself to get one there. The Bible is certainly useful, even essential, but not necessarily sufficient by itself.

Also, the Scriptures Paul is referring to are those Timothy has known “from infancy.” Most of the New Testament was not written in Timothy’s infancy, nor would it be available as such for three hundred years after Timothy’s death. Paul is obviously referring to the Old Testament. Thus, if this passage really did prove that the Scriptures are “sufficient” by themselves, it would prove that the Old Testament Scriptures are sufficient by themselves. The New Testament would thus be unnecessary. Obviously, this isn’t what Paul is saying. He is merely saying that the Old Testament is “useful” for training a believer so that he may be “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” But that is a far cry from saying that the Scriptures by themselves are sufficient as the sole source of all Christian truth.

Finally, the whole point of this passage is that Paul is telling Timothy to “continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of.” Did Timothy learn and become convinced of these truths from Scripture alone? Of course not; he learned them from Paul and his associates. That’s why Paul says “you know those from whom you learned it.” So rather than establishing sola Scriptura, this passage actually refutes it. Paul is not telling Timothy to derive his doctrines from Scripture alone. On the contrary, he’s telling him to continue in the oral teachings he has learned and become convinced of. Paul is merely repeating what he told Timothy earlier in the same letter: “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching” (2 Tim. 1:13). If Paul is trying to say that Scripture is the only source of doctrine, why does he tell Timothy to hold to the oral teachings? And if Scripture is the only source of doctrine, what did Christians use as their source of doctrine for the three hundred years before the New Testament was compiled at the end of the fourth century?

* * * * *

You said,

I do think that John 5:39 is a good illustration of Sola Scriptura. Remember that Sola Scriptura does not mean that one is saved by the Bible, but rather the Bible tells us all we need to know to be saved, i.e., it points us to Christ. That is exactly what Jesus is saying in this passage.

Well, if that’s true then Jesus is saying that the Old Testament tells us all we need to know to be saved, because those are the Scriptures he’s talking about. It was at least another thirty years before the first word of the New Testament was written. Since the Old Testament does not tell us all we need to know to be saved, we know that this is not what Jesus meant. It seems clear to me that Jesus was criticizing these people, not praising them. I thought that even as a Protestant. They depended on the Scriptures for eternal life, venerating them perhaps to the point of “bibliolatry,” yet they didn’t recognize the Messiah standing right in front of them. Also, the question is not whether the Bible tells us all we need to know to be saved (which I think it does, at least implicitly), the question is whether it tells us what we need to know with sufficient clarity and thoroughness that it can serve as its own interpreter, without the need for Tradition or the interpretive authority of the Church. History has shown that this approach, which is itself unscriptural, is deeply flawed. Millions of people have relied on the Bible alone and have interpreted it in such a way as to come up with doctrines so strange that a Presbyterian would say those people were not saved. Many of the most blasphemous heresies relied on Scripture alone, as a matter of fact.

* * * * *

You said,

There are several instances recorded where people misunderstood the Scriptures, but he fault must lie with the reader, not the Word.

You’re right, when people misunderstand the Scriptures (as the Reformers did) the fault always lies with the reader, never with the Word. That’s exactly why sola Scriptura doesn’t work. The Bible is infallible, but it simply isn’t clear enough to invariably lead the individual interpreter to a full and correct knowledge of the truth. In fact, the interpretive ability of the individual is the least reliable basis there is for formulating doctrine, which is why the practice of sola Scriptura has lead to so much doctrinal chaos. So as a practical matter, what good does it do to know that the Bible is infallible if we can’t interpret it infallibly? Error is error, whether it comes from the Bible (which is impossible) or from its interpreter (which happens all the time).

* * * * *

You said,

Your case regarding Acts 17 overlooks a key detail: the New Testament is Scripture just as surely as the Old. Naturally, the Bereans would not have found anything pertaining to the Lord’s Supper in their Scripture searches, because it was instituted as part of the New Covenant. Sola Scriptura does indeed fall apart if one ignores the New Testament, but to ignore the New Testament is de facto to not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

I’m afraid I’m not sure what your point was here, so I’ll just restate mine. Protestants almost always point to the Bereans as an example of sola Scriptura in action. They cite verse 11, “they . . . examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true,” and they say, “See, the Bereans relied on Scripture alone and they were praised for it. That’s what we should do too.” But my point was that the Bereans would not have continued to search the Scriptures once they were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and Paul was his apostle. Indeed, how could they have? As you yourself acknowledged, if they had “they would not have found anything.”

To see that this is so, let’s pretend for a moment that we are Berean Jews and we do rely on Scripture alone. Now all of a sudden this strange fellow Paul shows up in our synagogue one Saturday preaching a new message. Suppose he says to us,

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all . . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. (Galatians 5:2, 6).

Now being the good practitioners of sola Scriptura that we supposedly are, let’s whip out our Pocket Torahs (with words of Moses in red) and “search the Scriptures . . . to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11). What will we find if we double-check his message against the Scripture? Well, we’ll find Genesis 17:10-14:

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. . . For the generations to come every male among you . . . must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut of from his people; he has broken my covenant.

The Scriptures say that circumcision is to be an “everlasting covenant” that cannot be broken. Now this stranger, Paul, is telling us to reject it. What should we do? If we really do hold Scripture as the “supreme rule of faith,” we should send Paul packing! Perhaps we should even stone him.

Yet the Bereans did not reject Paul, did they? They should have, according to sola Scriptura. The Scriptures would have confirmed to them in no uncertain terms that they should not accept the apostolic message because it was blatantly unscriptural. Yet they accepted Paul’s new teachings as the word of God, even though most of those teachings had no basis whatsoever in Scripture (they were brand-new revelation, after all) and some of them flat-out contradicted the Scriptures.

The Bereans accepted Paul’s new teachings because their standard was not sola Scriptura, it was sola verbum Dei (the word of God alone). For them, and for the other Christians of that era, the teaching of the apostles was the word of God, whether the apostles wrote it down or not. That is the standard of the Catholic Church today (and of all other Christians too, except Protestants).

* * * * *

You said,

I believe you have missed a major point of 2 Tim. 3:14-17. Read again the latter part of v. 15: “ . . . you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” I cannot think of a better verse to illustrate the central purpose of the Bible, which is to point us to Christ and His salvation. Note that it is Scripture alone, and not Scripture plus Tradition, which is able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ.

With all due respect, I think it is you who have missed the major point of this passage, namely, that these are the Scriptures that Timothy has known “from infancy.” If this verse teaches sola Scriptura, then it teaches sola Old Testament. The Old Testament is able to “make you wise for salvation,” because it points to Jesus. That is one of its primary functions. But that does not mean that it contains everything we need to know for doctrine and practice. Since Christians felt the need to compile a New Testament, we must assume that the Old Testament doesn’t contain everything we need to know for doctrine and practice.

Also, you’re right that the central purpose of the bible is to point us to Christ and His salvation, but it does not automatically follow from that that the Bible contains everything we need to know for doctrine and practice, or even if it does, that it expresses those doctrines and practices so clearly that no authoritative interpreter is required. As I showed in my paper, the testimony of the Bible itself and of the early Christians is that it does not contain everything we need to know for doctrine and practice, and Protestant history has shown conclusively that in the absence of an authoritative interpreter, reliance on the Bible alone is a prescription for doctrinal chaos and the ever-accelerating fragmentation of the visible church.

However, just because the Bible is not by itself sufficient for doctrine and practice, that does not mean it is not central and primary. The Bible is absolutely central to any Christian world-view. The Catholic Church has a doctrine called “prima Scriptura,” which means that the Bible has primary authority over Tradition, and even over the teaching of the Church. The Tradition serves mainly to help us understand the Scriptures, and the Scriptures regulate the Church’s teaching:

[The Church] is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully.³

The Church has always venerated the Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord . . . She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the Word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture.⁴

So the question is not whether the Bible is important, or even whether it is primary, the question is whether it is sufficient all by itself to lead us to a full and complete understanding of Christian doctrine and practice. Given the rampant doctrinal diversity among those who rely on Scripture alone, I submit that history has demonstrated quite conclusively that it is not.

Finally, I think it illustrates your own natural and unconscious bias when you say “it is Scripture alone, and not Scripture plus Tradition . . .” Paul simply says “Scripture,” but when you read it, you unconsciously insert the word “alone.” Paul didn’t put that word there, you did. And if Paul meant to say that “Scripture alone” is sufficient for doctrine and practice, then he contradicted himself, for in 2 Tim. 1:13, he said, “What you heard [orally] from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching [doctrine], with faith and love in Christ Jesus.”

* * * * *

You mention the “traditions of men” versus the revealed doctrine of God. I think you’re absolutely right about that. Christianity is a revealed religion. All of its doctrines have been revealed to man by God. Therefore, the proper test, indeed the only test, of any purported Christian doctrine is whether that doctrine was revealed by God. If it was not, then it is a “tradition of men,” and therefore not a true Christian doctrine. Here then is a list of just a few “traditions of men” that were not revealed by God and that did not exist for over a thousand years after Christ: sola Scriptura, sola fide, symbolic Eucharist, symbolic baptism, congregational church government, forensic justification, and once-saved-always-saved.

* * * * *

You note that “Paul did not feel the need to get approval or instruction from the Church (Jerusalem) before preaching God’s Word.” Well of course not. Every Christian is called upon to preach God’s word. It is part of our duty as members of the universal priesthood of believers. This is just as true in the Catholic Church as it is in the Protestant churches. But I think what you probably meant was that Paul did not rely on the Church to commission him, that is, to give him his apostolic authority. That’s true of course, and not just for him, but for the other apostles as well. They were all commissioned by Jesus himself, and their apostolic authority came directly from him. So the apostles did not derive their authority from the Church. On the contrary, the Church derived its authority from the apostles, who handed on their authority to their successors in the Church. Therefore, the successors of the apostles (Timothy, Titus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, etc.) certainly did need to be commissioned by the church before they could legitimately exercise the Church’s apostolic authority. This was the standard for the rest of Christian history (except in Protestantism, of course):

It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate [the bishops], have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assembly themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for he sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4:26:2 [A.D. 189]).

But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men--a man moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. (Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics, 32 [A.D. 200]).

* * * * *

You note that “Paul’s ‘traditions’ (or ‘teachings’) were not a belief system of uncertain origin but were given to him by direct revelation from Christ.” Precisely. Now the question is, did Paul commit all of his divinely revealed message to writing? According to his own testimony he did not.

Paul wrote the book of 2 Timothy at the end of his life (“For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure . . . I have finished the race” vs. 4:6-7). If sola Scriptura were correct, then upon Paul’s death, only his inspired writings would remain in force (since they would theoretically contain the sum total of the revelation that God gave him to pass along). Yet at the very end of his life, he told Timothy,

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching . . . And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Tim. 1:13, 2:2).

That’s five generations of oral tradition: (1) Jesus to (2) Paul to (3) Timothy to (4) “reliable men” to (5) others. It certainly doesn’t seem as if Paul believed that all of his essential teachings had been reduced to writing, and it certainly doesn’t seem as if he intended his oral teachings to die with him. Instead, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he commanded that his oral teachings be propagated through the ages.

* * * * *

You said,

The fact that the Bible does not explicitly teach Sola Scriptura does not necessarily mean that it is not a true doctrine.

Now, I can accept that statement (in theory) because I don’t believe in sola Scriptura. But you can’t accept it, not if you want to be consistent with your principles anyway. Your doctrine requires that every essential teaching be “perspicuously” (i.e., clearly) taught in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is not clearly taught in the Bible, and therefore it fails its own test. Now, if you can accept this doctrine anyway, even though it’s not taught in the Bible, or in Tradition, then you should have no trouble accepting Catholic doctrines (all of which are at least implicitly present in Scripture, though a few of them are fleshed out in the apostolic Tradition).

As an example, you said,

Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity taught, at least not by name, and yet this essential attribute of God is deduced from Biblical teachings (e.g., 1 John 5:7-8).

I’m glad you brought up the Trinity, because it is an excellent example of a doctrine that was defined more from Tradition than from Scripture. Part of the Trinity doctrine is the concept of the deity of Jesus. His deity is never directly and explicitly taught in the New Testament, it is only mentioned tangentially and inferentially. Presumably that is because the early Christians understood it correctly, and their descendants, relying on apostolic Tradition, understood it too.

But a few centuries later some heretics arose, called Arians, who taught that Jesus was a second, inferior “god,” standing midway between the Father and creatures. He is like God in many ways, and may even be God in some sense, but he is still a created being. According to the Arians, God created Jesus out of nothing before he created anything else. Then, through Jesus, God created the universe. Ironically, the Arians based their teachings on their interpretation of Scripture. Such verses as Psalm 2:7 (“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”) and Rev. 3:14 (“the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:”) probably formed the basis for their theology. If you read Proverbs chapter 8 as a prophecy of Jesus it’s easy to see where they got their ideas:

The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind . . . Blessed is the man who listens to me . . . whoever finds me finds life. (Proverbs 8:22-35).

The subject of Proverbs 8 is called “Wisdom,” and the Arians no doubt noted that when Jesus was challenged by the Pharisees, he replied, “Wisdom is proved right by her actions” (Matt. 11:19), thus identifying himself as “wisdom.” Paul also wrote that Jesus “has become for us wisdom from God” (1 Cor. 1:30). No doubt the Arians understood this to mean that Jesus is the “wisdom” of Proverbs 8, and that he was therefore “the first of [God’s] works.” The fact that Jesus is called the “only-begotten” Son of God seems to further confirm the Arian theology.

If you had to refute the Arians, how would you do it? Frankly, if I relied on Scripture alone, I’d have an easier time defending Arianism than I would have defending the orthodox (i.e., Catholic) doctrine. The main reason I believe that Jesus has always been God and is uncreated, is because it’s what I was taught. It’s what all Christians are taught, long before they ever pick up a Bible. And why do we all reject Arianism? Because the Catholic Church (at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325) declared that Arianism was heretical, and they gave us the definition of Christ’s nature that we still use today: “We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” Honestly, I don’t know what the difference is between “begotten” and “made,” but the Church said there is one, so there is one. Both sides in the dispute appealed to Scripture (as they understood it) to support their views, so it was necessary for the Church to step in and make an authoritative decision on which interpretation was right. When we read the Bible today, references to Christ’s deity seem to jump right off the page, but that’s only because we believe in His deity before we ever open the Bible. Before the Church defined it, it was not so obvious. Like it or not, you inherited your belief in the deity of Christ from the Catholic Church. Ditto for your belief in the deity of the Holy Spirit (Council of Constantinople, against the teachings of the Macedonians, A.D. 381).

* * * * *

You said,

The prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene was obviously transmitted orally for who-knows-how-long, but note that it is now recorded in the New Testament portion of the Scriptures. Apparently, the Holy Spirit felt that it was important enough to be accurately preserved orally until the time the New Covenant was introduced, at which time He caused it to be written down.

I think you’re missing the point here. If sola Scriptura were true, then only the Old Testament would have been an acceptable source for doctrine and practice at the time of Christ. Yet here is a concrete example of the Holy Spirit protecting an oral prophecy (which is by definition God’s Word) throughout the ages. So the Bible itself witnesses to the fact that the Holy Spirit sometimes chooses to propagate His word orally, rather than in writing. The fact that the particular prophecy Matthew recorded is now written down is irrelevant. It was still true for centuries before Matthew wrote it down. It did not “become” the Word of God when Matthew wrote it down.

So the Bible provides an example of the Holy Spirit protecting the oral transmission of God’s Word, and the Bible further commands us to “hold to” God’s Word whether it comes to us “by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). Still further, the Bible commands that the oral Tradition be propagated through the ages (2 Tim. 2:2). Where then is the basis for insisting that Scripture alone is to be our standard? Not only is that idea not found in Scripture, it is thoroughly refuted by Scripture!

* * * * *

You went on to say, “I remind you that Sola Scriptura means regarding the Bible as ‘the only rule of faith and obedience’ (WCF, Larger Catechism, No. 3).” However, I would remind you that this doctrine is not taught in the Bible. Therefore, if the Bible really is the only rule of faith and obedience, then I must reject the idea that the Bible is the only rule of faith and obedience, because it is not taught in the Bible. You are affirming a doctrine that is flagrantly self-contradictory. Surely you can see how irrational that is.

* * * * *

You said,

It should come as no surprise that the Holy Spirit is capable of maintaining an accurate oral transmission of a prophecy.

No, it shouldn’t. Why then do you doubt the accuracy of the apostolic Tradition that has been handed down in the Catholic Church? God commanded that the oral teachings be handed down (2 Tim. 2:2), and the Church has done so. Therefore, if it “should come as no surprise that the Holy Spirit is capable of maintaining an accurate oral transmission,” why do you assume that he has not done so, and that therefore Scripture alone is reliable?

You go on to say,

But I think the more notable point is that He caused it to be written down in the canon of Scripture.

Why is that the more notable point? It seems to me that this argument misses the point, namely, that the Bible provides specific examples of the word of God being propagated orally during the Old Testament era. Therefore, if sola Scriptura ever existed, it must be a new doctrine that originated with Christianity. Where then is the teaching of this doctrine? It’s not found in the Bible, so where did it originate? (Answer: as far as I’ve been able to determine, sola Scriptura originated with a Catharist sect called the “Albigensians” in Southern France in the late twelfth century).

* * * * *

You said,

It goes without saying that Jesus did not practice Sola Scriptura by example. How could He? If He had, He would have merely been a teacher, another in an endless line of Jewish teachers who have been all but forgotten. But Jesus was not just a teacher, but the initiator of the New Covenant. His Words were Scripture just as surely as the Father’s were when He initiated the Old Covenant.

I think you’re missing the point again. Jesus and the apostles had a new revelation to give, and their reliance on that new revelation does not undermine sola Scriptura. However, their reliance on preexisting oral Tradition does. If sola Scriptura were true, both Jesus and the apostles would have based their doctrines either on the Old Testament Scriptures alone, or on their own new, God-given revelation. They would not have based any of it on the Jewish oral Tradition. The fact that they did so proves that they did not believe in sola Scriptura.

You said,

Note that the Jewish oral Tradition was used as examples, illustrations, or evidences for Christ’s messiahship, but were not used to teach doctrines.

I thought Christ’s messiahship was a doctrine. I guess you’ll have to define the word “doctrine.” The dictionary defines it as “A body of principles presented by a specific organization for acceptance or belief.” The resurrection of Christ is a doctrine; justification by faith is a doctrine; the atonement is a doctrine. Jesus did rely on oral Tradition to establish doctrine. For example, in Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus said,

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

The Old Testament never mentions Moses’ seat, but it was common knowledge in Israel that the authoritative teaching office of Moses was passed on to his successors. Thus, the Pharisees held a legitimate teaching office, and they must be obeyed, but not imitated.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abote 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 those of the great Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 15:21). The Scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative tradition and as such their teaching deserved to be respected.⁵

The fact that the people were required to obey the Pharisees’ teachings is a doctrine, and Jesus based that doctrine on the fact that the Pharisees “sit in Moses’ seat,” a fact he got from Tradition, not Scripture.

Love,

Gary