Sunday, February 08, 2009

Bible Verses on Sola Scriptura

This is one of the most intectual and proof having portions that I've devised on Sola Scriptura. Why? IT's because the one area many Bible Believers have trouble with exposing Catholics or explaining to Catholics in leading them to Christ is about Sola Scriptura. The Catholic mentality is that the Bible isn't enough and tradition is needed to supplant the scripture also that only tradition existed in Christ's day not Nt scripture so tradition must be followed. This concerns are answered in this article. It's shows historical, biblical, and religious evidence to back Sola Scriptura.

Enjoy.


Sola Scriptura:

1). 2 Timothy 3:15-16 All Scripture is inspired. Also see Psalm 89:34 .Not even God would alter his word. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says his written word is inspired and not given by private inspiration. The prophecy came by holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit.

2). Psalms 138:2 Gods word are placed above his name. Is tradition mentioned or implied in Bible with such distinction and honor? No.

3). John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken. (Tradition isnt mentioned or included in that profound statement. If tradition and scripture were equal, would scripture and tradition cannot be broken? Scripture is only there to show the uniqueness of Gods word superior to tradition.

4). Psalm 119:142 Thy law is Truth (Emphasis to solely given to Gods word not tradition.)

5). Mt. 22:29 Not knowing Gods word or commandments and basing solely on tradition can lead to error. If both are equal, can tradition alone just like scripture alone by itself is error-free? Tradition creates error by being utilized alone.

6). 1 Cor. 4:6 Think not above with which is written. (Tradition that contradicts Gods word should be rejected.) See also John 14:23-24 saying to Keep Gods words and sayings.

7). 2 Peter 1:20-21 Private interpretation of Scripture is forbidden, yet that occurs with the magisterium, Vatican II, etc with their decrees. The origin of Gods word is God Himself not man, but using man to record it as by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

. Psalm 19:7 The law of God is perfect. (The total reverence is shown to Gods word excluding tradition by any name whatsoever.

9). 2 Timothy 3:14-17 Scripture makes people wise unto salvation and the scriptures are God-breathed. The word of God completes man and man doesnt complete the word of God. If it makes the man of God perfect (complete) then tradition isnt necessary to have some supplement to the Bible. Tradition never has the inspiring power like that or is equal to the Bible as Catholicism teaches. Tradition alone can never man the man of God perfect, only scripture.

10). Psalm 119:97 Mediation of Gods word reaps great benefits. See also Acts 17:10-13 showing the Bereans use a method of comparing scriptures to the apostles saying to test their doctrine.

11). Luke 24:25-27 The scriptures and the prophets were expounded to prove Christ is the one, I AM, God, the Messiah, etc.

12). Acts 17:1-5 Reasoned with them out of the scriptures. (You cant reason conclusively using tradition since it varies in many religious documents, etc. Scripture is superior to tradition since you can conclusively reason to incorporate validate doctrines, etc.) Scripture is also complete with 66 books at your sites to compare easily.

Tradition on the other hand has many inaccessible parts and its difficult to deduce sometimes its origin, range, and concepts.

Today, Catholics and Catholic apologists when confronting opposition constantly obsess with Sola Scriptura and say there is not one verse that shows Sola Scriptura. The fact is that Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the supreme source of information for religious usage, the final court of appeal for doctrine, and sufficient guide for any religious walk. Those 3 signs can be easily derived from Gods word.

13). Isaiah 18:19-20 Check witches sayings against the Word of God not tradition. If someones sayings conflict with Gods word, there is no light in them. The Word of God can only verify authentic tradition or teaching and that makes tradition secondary and subordinate to Gods word.

14). Mt. 15:3 Tradition that tries to override Gods commandments was rebuked by Christ. See also John 20:30-31 saying the written word is sufficient for salvation.

15). Hebrews 4:12 The power of the Word of God is displayed (Its even greater than inconsistent, changing tradition. Tradition is a wide and not narrow concept covering tons of documents that arent even necessarily based on the scriptures. The scriptures are narrow and consistent with non-varying information.

Even the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. Polycarp wrote in his Epistle to the Philippians in Chapter 8 that who perverts the oracles of God is the firstborn of Satan.

Later Basil calls the Scriptures God-inspired and the method to figure which doctrines are in line with Christianity. Gregory of Nyssa called the Scripture the rule and measure of every tenet and Athansius classifies Gods word as sufficient above all things.

Crysostom called Gods word an exact standard and rule of all things. Thats solid proof of the early Church designating the Scriptures as having high importance and value. Even Augustine in his City of God Book called the Sciptures having paramount or supreme authority.

No early church leader designated scripture as equal or inferior to tradition until centuries later by Catholicism and other cults. Waldensians, Wycliffe, the Reformers of especially Martin Luther and John Knox believed in the superiority of God-inspired scriptures indeed. Its been here for more than 3,000 + years and its the most popular and greatest prose of literature of all time.

16). Luke 10:26, Luke 16:29, John 5:39, Romans 4:3 Scriptures are sufficient (Tradition can never compare with the scriptures).

17). Romans 2:16 We are judged by Christ according to the gospel. (Man is judged by the written word of God=scriptures not tradition.)

1 . Psalm 119:106 Great importance of Gods word is shown. (Tradition is never proclaimed like that.

19). Psalm 1:1-2/ John 5:39 The scriptures testify of Christ and lead people to eternal life. Can tradition provide that equally? No.

20). 2 Peter 1:16-21 Scripture is inspired and tradition isnt. God condemns certain traditions, but not one scripture shows scripture being condemned by God and that makes the scriptures superior.

21). Galatians 3:22 Scripture has shown that all are sinners (even Mary) and we have the promise of faith by Jesus Christ to those that believe. Tradition is mainly void on that.

22). Romans 10:11 The scripture proclaims the way to salvation not necessarily tradition.

23). John 17:17 Thy word is truth (Tradition isnt included nor implied to be pure truth. It doesnt say Thy Tradition is Truth, but Thy Word is Truth. Theres a big difference.)

24). Psalm 12:6-7 Gods promise to preserve his word forever and is maintained to this day forever. See also 2 Thes. 2:13 speaking of the Bible as the word of God not of men (traditions). Tradition varies from time to time and is never in essence equal to scripture indeed.

25). Joshua 1:1 God always promoted the great importance of keeping his written word. (Preserving tradition is never mentioned in Gods word and Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for attempting to make their false tradition equal to the Torah and the OT.

26). 1 Cor. 15:3-4 Paul confirms the gospel truth by the Scriptures. (Tradition can never be entirely affirmed or give a consistent, entirely accurate truth over the centuries except Gods word.)

27). Rec. 22:18-19 Adding or subtracting from Gods word is wrong and sinful that will cause many errors. The Bible is therefore sufficient and complete. See also Prov. 30:6, Deut. 12:32, and Ecc. 3:14.

2 . 1 Peter 1:24 The word of the Lord shall endure forever. Tradition can never endure forever in an unchanging existence like the Bible can.

29). The Bible declares itself as having:

A). Acts 1:1-2 All necessary things Jesus did

B). Luke 1:3-4 Certainty of His and teaching

C). John 20:30-31 Life in the name of Jesus

D). 2 Tim. 3:15 Instruction to salvation

E). 1 Cor.14:37 Commands of the Lord

F). 2 Tim. 3:16-17 Every good work

G) 1 John 2:1 Protection against sinful living

H). 1 John 5:13 An assurance of eternal life. See also John 5:39.

I). Acts 17:11 Standard by which teachings and doctrines are tested.

J). 1 Cor. 4:6 Standard which we cannot go beyond
K). Rev. 1:3 Blessing from God

L). 1 John 1:3-4 Joy that is complete. See also Jer. 15:16

M). Rev. 20:12 Standard by which you are judged by.

Written documents like the Bible are more reliable than oral tradition anyway. Scripture is obviously vastly superior to all tradition.

To assume that tradition is equal to the Bible, you must deny the all-sufficient Word of God. By sufficient and complete I mean that the scriptures are composed of 66 books of the OT and NT combined. Its all there to use. In contrast, tradition is made up of uninspired documents (1,000s of them) that vary and cant be entirely looked up for comparison or find all of it (Some tradition are inaccessible in many of its portions).

Tradition has changed so rapidly over time. Nobody whether its clergy or otherwise cant receive all tradition entirely as a result.


Therefore, no verse in Gods word presents the equality of the Bible and tradition.

Some tradition can be useful, but all of it must be subjected and secondary to Gods word. If any tradition contradicts Gods word, that false tradition is rejected and discarded. Using the process of elimination mainly makes the case for Sola Scriptura. The burden of proof rests upon tradition not scripture making tradition inferior.

Another point is that in 1559 the Roman Catholic Church issued the Index Liborum Probihitorum or the Index of Forbidden Books. It restricted all books of the Protestant Reformers, Protestant Bibles, works of Erasmus, etc. Pope Paul VI only revoked this in 1959.

Thats 400 yrs. of illegal restriction of literature by Catholicism yet again. Before that in 1229, there was the Council of Toulouse, which restricted the Bible to laymen of the OT and NT.

In the Council of Trent, it was the same thing, but access was only granted by a license given only in rare cases. Even the clergy had to receive a license from bishops to read the Bible. It was the Protestants and Bible believers who created and spread Gods word worldwide not Catholics. Now, Catholic sheep have 100 % full access to the scriptures though.

30). Hebrews 4:12 The Bible is sharper than any two-edged sword and holds its own weight. The extent of the rule and standard of faith are those 66 books, yet Catholics are even disagreeing on their rule of faith having dispute on whether how many of the thousands of decrees or papal documents are infallible. The conflict makes tradition inferior to the Bible and by other reasons as well.

31). 2 Thes. 2:15 Paul talked about to hold fast to traditions youve been taught whether by word (in Acts 26:22 Paul stated he spoke nothing other than the OT scripture) and our epistle (which is the NT scripture). Every minute tradition of all church history will have to be 100% accurate and true to be equal to scripture, but thats an impossibility.

32). 1 John 2:7 The Holy Spirit interprets His own Word by comparing scriptures helping believers to understand. See also Rom. 8:9 and Job 32:8.

The Holy Spirit is the only interpreter of scripture not the magisterium, not through a church, or through any other influences. Catholics are to follow authority figures in order to check out Scripture. This is the opposite of the Bible, which tells us that we should use Scripture to check out the teachings of authority figures. (From the magisterium, etc.)

35). Rev. 1:11 Jesus commanded John to write information in the scriptures to instruct the church, etc. Written scripture has a great deal of importance indeed and superior to all tradition. Besides tradition cannot claim to us everything that He said and did anyway.

36). 1 Cor. 14:3 Acknowledge what Paul writes. All Scripture is accurate and true in the OT and NT, but all tradition isnt accurate and true. Therefore, scripture cant be equal to tradition.

The burden of proof is on tradition and tradition must always be in accord with the scriptures and be bounded by it being secondary. There is no burden of proof on the scriptures neither can scripture be bounded by tradition thus making tradition inferior.

37). 1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Thes. 5:27, Col. 4:16, Rev. 1:3, Acts 17:11, Acts 28:31, Romans 1:1-2, Romans 16:25-26 These following verses prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the early church was a Bible-reading church. Since it was a reading and teaching church, many of the scriptures were already written before 100 A.D. for religious or spiritual usage.

3 . Jer. 15:16 Finding the word of God can cause spiritual nourishment.

39). Acts 26:22-23 No other teaching is mention in the Bible but the sufficient Gospel. All basic gospel info is mentioned in the Bible, so why is tradition necessary to be added unto it? It isnt logical. Tradition has the burden of proof not the scriptures making scripture better among tons of other reasons.

40). 1 Cor. 1-11 The whole sufficient gospel is mentioned in a summary, so why is addition of tradition needed? Why is needed when the Bible gives sufficient information on the history of the early church, requirement for salvation, baptism, communion, worship, pastors, Jesus, etc. It isnt necessary for additions if the facts are already presented in Gods word for a great religious experience. Heres a timeline of OT development:

-1400 B.C. Moses by God directly creates the Torah
-1400 B.C.-200 B.C. Various books written down of the O.T. proven by historical archaeology, etc.
-285-200 B.C. Septuagint created from Jews in Egypt (mainly a myth)
-100s BC.-70 AD. Nash Papyrus
-100s B.C. Samartian Pentateuch made
-75-115 AD. The Council of Jamnia confirms the OT. as canonically true.
-100s AD. Meilto, a Christian writer lists 22 books of the OT. Meito of Sardis dies by 180 AD. The Apocrypha isnt included at all in the list. Josephus, Athanansius, Jerome, Philo, and other people didnt include the Apocrypha or called it canonical scripture.
-130 AD. Aquilas version created
-150-200 AD. Theodotions version made.
-170 AD. Symmachus version written
-150-200 AD. Onkelos version of the Torah done from Hebrew to Aramaic
-150 AD. An unknown text known by Jacob of Edessa, Ot made by Jews given to Abgar, king of Edessa.
-322 AD. Jonathan ben Uzziels version of the Prophets. (done from Hebrew to Aramaic)
-400 AD. The Geniza Fragments with over 200,000 Hebrew texts are created.
-1000 AD. Jewish peole created the Mazzoretic text (perfect 100 % accurate. None to little criticism or debate over its accuracy.

41). Deut. 6:6-9 The word of God was to be written and taught to children. Tradition is not commanded by Almighty God to be written.

42). Isaiah 34:16 The prophet exhorts people to Seek and read Gods word. Every single oral tradition is not preserved, yet the written scriptures are preserved for 3,000 + yrs. For the OT and 2000 yrs. involving the NT scriptures so tradition is inferior.

43). Luke 24:44 Jesus Christ mentioned his usage of the word of God in the OT (The NT wasnt around then) saying The law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms. Not one OT-era tradition is mentioned like the Apocryphal books. It is obvious who is superior and what is subjected and secondary. Tradition is simply inferior.

44). Mt. 22:23-9 Jesus, when debating, point them (Pharisees and other unbelievers) to the word of God not tradition. The Sadducees in that situation were ignorant of Gods word and that lead them to error. You shouldnt compete tradition against scripture. The word of God is an easy winner against any form of tradition. Heres the NT timeline for the development of the NT scriptures before 400 AD:

- Before 66 A.D Barcelona Papyrus (P67) contains Matthew 3:9, 15; Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28.
-ca. 66 A.D. The Paris Papyrus (P4) of Luke dated not more than Johannine Codex (P66) we have almost a complete portion of Johns gospel dating to about 125 A.D.
-45-75 AD. The majority of the NT was created.
-Papyrus P66 contains a large portion of the Gospel of John dates back to around 200 A.D.
-Papyrus P75 contained sections of John and Luke from the early 3rd century
-65 AD. Madgen Papyrus discovered very recently showing some of the Gospels. One of the earliest NT copies ever discovered yrs. ago.
-80-95 AD. The writings of John (1st-3rd) and Revelations are written down.
-100 AD. All of the NT books are finally written down and began to spread through the world.
100-125 AD. Numerous copies of the NT are discovered in portions.
-125 AD. Early copy of the NT are found and the Muratori Canon written by Maricon, a heretic though.
-147 AD. Syrian Peshitta written
-157 AD. The Old Latin Vulgate (Old Itala) was created.
-177 AD. The Gallic or Celtic version formulated in France.
-185-220 AD. Origen, born in Alexandria mentions all of the Books of the OT and NT. He makes over 18,000 citations.
-250 AD. Sadhidic version was created from upper Egypt.
-266 AD. Synod of Antioch rejected Paul of Samosata heresy referring to the ecclesiastical canon.
-250-300 AD. Akhmimic version (based on the Sahidic)
-300 ADs AD. Bohairic version created from Lower Egypt
-300s AD. Ethoipic version written down (related to Traditional text)
-325 AD. Codex Claromatanus
-326 AD. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria mentions all of the NT and OT books.
-330 AD. The Gothic version created by Bishop Ulfilas for the Goths and 8 copies are extant.
-330-340 AD. Codex A (Sinaiticus) and Codex B (Viticanius) created to make Eusibus 50 copies.
-363 AD. Synod of Laodicea says only canonized books of the OT and NT are to be read in the Churches.
-385 AD Cheltenham Canon
-397 AD. The Council of Carthage lead by Jerome to create his Latin Vulgate (Catholic-based Bible)

Summary of early church scriptural access before 300 AD from www.letusreason.org:

For example: Ignatius who lived somewhere around 70-110 A.D. quotes from 15 of the 27 books of the New Testament. This is significant because of the fact of how early it is. Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis was a personal student of the apostle John he lived in the period of 130 A.D. He wrote An Explanation of the Lord's Discourses," in which he quotes from John, and records traditions about the origin of Matthew and Mark.

Papais noted that the apostle Mark in writing his Gospel "wrote down accurately ... whatsoever he [Peter] remembered of the things said or done by Christ. Mark committed no error ... for he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things he [Peter] had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. Fragments of Papias' Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, ca. 140 A.D. (III, XIX, XX) attests that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are all based on reliable eyewitness testimony (his portion on Luke is missing).


Polycarp, in his Letter to the Philippians (69-155 A.D.), quotes much of the NT Matt., Acts, Hebrews Philippians, and reproduces phrases from nine other of Paul's letters and I Peter. Irenaeus a disciple of Polycarp 135-210 A.D. says there are only 4 Gospels.


He quotes Paul and over 200 quotes from all the New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John, he has 1,819 quotes. Ignatius, in his Seven Letters, written about 110 A.D., during his journey from Antioch to Rome for his martyrdom, quotes from Matthew, I Peter, I John, cites nine of Paul's Epistles, and his letters bear the impress of the other three Gospels. Clement of Alexandria, who lived about AD 150 A.D. 212, has 2,406 quotes from all but three books of the New Testament.

Tertullian, who was an elder of the church in Carthage Africa lived around 160-220 A.D., quotes the New Testament 7,258 times. Of these quotes, around 3,800 are from the gospels. Other quotes from Church fathers include Justin Martyr, a native of Samaria in the second century, used in the Septuagint in all his writings, has 330 quotes.


Justin Martyr (100-160 A.D.) quotes all 4 Gospels, Acts and the epistles of Paul and Revelation. Portions of the gospels were read every Sunday in church. Tatian, about A.D. 160, made a "Harmony of the Four Gospels called the "Diatessaron," affirming that only Four Gospels, were recognized among the churches.


Clement, of Alexandria (165-220 AD) names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Origen 185-254 names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments 17,922 quotes.


By 200 AD. Athanasius (who preserved the Trinity among the Church) had all 27 books of the New Testament. He said they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away. Origen an African church father 185-254 A.D. names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments. In The Hexapla he harmonized the gospels in six columns in Hebrew and Greek.
Hippolytus, (A.D. 170-235) recognized twenty-two books. He had 1,378 quotes of Scripture.


From 100-300 A.D. we have total of 36,289 patristic quotes of the Greek New Testament. This is not to be considered an endorsement of everything these men wrote, but only to show the immediate understanding of their time and the proof of the Greek New Testament.

The Didache, written in Greek between 60 AD at the earliest to100 A.D, makes 22 quotations from Matthew with references to Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, I Peter; and speaks of The Gospel as a already written document. This was used as church manual and is significant because of its early age and quoting other books of the Bible.


The earliest complete list of Scripture from Eusebius a church historian (who died 340 A.D.) He had 5,176 quotes of Scripture. He distinguished books universally received and accepted by the majority of the church. There were six books held back their acceptance. They could not be traced directly to an apostolic source.

This action shows that the church wanted to ensure that the books bore direct and authentic testimony to be accepted. The concern was not of excluding canonical books, but of not including non-canonical books. The book of 2 Peter and especially Revelation had widespread hesitation as its message in symbolism was veiled, these were the last two accepted. (end of website source)


Heres the surviving NT manuscripts today:

Type Number
Latin Vulgate 10,000+
Ethiopic 2,000+
Slavic 4,181
Syria Peshitta 350+
Armenian 2,586
Total with Boharic, Arabic, Old Latin, and other texts. 19,200+


45). Mat. 4 Jesus rebuked Satan using only scripture by saying It is written Jesus didnt use a combination of scripture or tradition to do it, but only scripture. You can easily validate concepts or rebuke people by using scripture alone.

46). 2 Tim. 2:15 You can study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. The scriptures are sufficient to do that.

47). Luke 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (not tradition). Is tradition perceived in this verse as the means you must go or live by? No, only the word of God is the rule of faith that which all Christians should live by.

Here are some questions that Catholic apologists or all Catholics cant answer conclusively:

A). 2 Timothy 3:15-16 says that all scripture is inspired. Does the Bible say that tradition is inspired or completes man?

B). John 10:35 says that scripture cannot be broken. Does the Bible or Jesus Christ say that tradition cant be broken?

C). Psalm 19:7 says that the Law of God is perfect. Does the Bible or God say that tradition is perfect?

D). Isaiah 8:19-20 says that if you go against the Word of God, you have no light. Does the Bible or God say if you are against tradition, there is no light in you?

E). John 5:39 says that if you search the scriptures you can find salvation. Does the Bible or God say if you find tradition then you will have eternal life?

F). Psalm 138:2 speaks of Gods word being placed above Gods name. Does the Bible or God say that tradition is above Gods name?

G). John 17:17 says, THY WORD IS TRUTH. Does the Bible or God (Jesus Christ) say that tradition is also truth?

H). Luke 4:4 says that Man must live by every word of God. Does the Bible or God say you must live by tradition alone?

I). Psalm 12:6-7 says that God made a promise to preserve his words forever. Did the Bible or God say he will preserve tradition forever?

J). Matthew 15:1-9 says that Christ condemns (some but not all) tradition used by the Pharisees which contradict the Bible. Did God or the Bible condemn any scripture or any portion of the scriptures?

K). Luke 24:25-27 says that the scriptures were expounded to confirm that Christ is the Messiah, The One, I AM, GOD, etc. Does God or the Bible say that tradition can accomplish all of this by itself?

L). If the scriptures are in need of supplament by tradition, then what is the exact extend of the tradition needed? Is this tradition 100% accurate and what historical evidence can you back up to claim this tradition is pure, inerrant, unchanging, etc?

The answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO.

*To make the claim of equality of both scripture and tradition or the use of tradition to supplant scripture, you must prove that each can show the same qualities of being expounded of Christ, being the TRUTH, perfect, above his name, etc. all by itself without either help. That cant be down conclusively since the scriptures are obviously superior to all forms of tradition.

The Scriptures characteristics include being:

-Preserved for over 3,000 yrs. And being written as early as 1,300 B.C. for the OT and 45 AD. For the Nt.
-Has 66 books easily accessible to use and you can find all scripture for usage and comparison.
-Has sufficient info for a great Christian walk life and includes concepts and facts:

(Method of salvation, Christs birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, baptism and church worship, clergy structure plus church roles outlined for men and women, Trinity or Godhead, equality of all believers and all human beings, early church history, heaven and hell, end times, prophecy, great amounts of world history, commands of God, Blessings from God, joy, protection against sinful living, The apostles, Mary, and other figures, Gods promises, covenants, and commandments, a Great Christian lifestyle and walk, some science and the origin of the universe and mankind [God is that origin], and teaches morality and ethics that are useful.)

The list goes on and on. If scripture has that, then there is nothing I need from tradition since the Bible tells all the ingredients of living righteously, etc. Where is the need for addition to scripture when the scriptures already tell me the concepts needed to live a godly life, etc. Written scriptures have a higher chance to be preserved than oral tradition or written tradition.

Also, the scriptures cannot contradict other scripture. There are versions of the scriptures maintained in ancient times like the Peshitta, Old Latin, Ethiopic, Gothic, etc. plus the scriptures are never condemned by God whether in the Bible or otherwise. Its always accurate, complete, and inerrant.



The scriptures of the OT are quoted in the NT, as one example is Jesus Christ quoting them. Also, the sayings of Jesus are quoted in other parts of the NT not only the Gospels. The Scriptures are preserved today with over 20,000 + copies for comparison. Church patriarchs, history, studies, and other proofs making it dissimilar to tradition conclusively prove its accuracy. Wow. The Bible is obviously very unique and both Catholics and Protestants agree on that, but the issue of tradition is what we disagree on. Catholics believe they are equal, yet Protestants think they are inferior and secondary to the Bible.

Now on to Tradition. Tradition possesses characteristics of being:

They were primarily preserved first orally and later written down in church documents. They vary easily since now there are thousands of traditions from different people, places, etc. with little or no set standards to preserve it making it not consistent.


There is little stability or criteria to classify tradition other than any document or work that discusses religiously the history of the church or has some involvement with Christianity. Even some Catholic scholars today are disputing which Papal decrees are infallible and which arent.

Much of tradition is varied even amongst the patriarchs (i.e. Justin Martyr pretty much believes in transubstantiation, but Tertullian, Augustine, and Ireaneus, plus Cyprian denied it. Origen calls Peter and every disciple a rock, yet Augustine, Jerome, Eusibus, and others called Christ the Rock of the Church.)

Some traditions are accessible, but others are inaccessible for usage.

To follow all tradition, you must find all of tradition, but the truth is you cant find all of tradition at all. You can find all of the scriptures though. Oral tradition is part of tradition also and oral tradition has the greatest chance to be distorted over time.


To assume all oral tradition even from the 1st and 2nd century is 100 % accurate and reliable today is absurd. Jesus (GOD) in the Bible condemned some of tradition. All tradition isnt false, but all carry a burden of proof being subjected and secondary to the Bible. The Bible or portions of it was never condemned by Christ or carry a burden of proof. To claim the equality of both scripture and tradition, you must prove among other things that both arent condemned; yet some of tradition is condemned.

Tradition is also too broad to make the claim of equality to Gods word. Tradition includes patriachs sayings, church uninspired writings, Papal decrees, etc. Some of that doesnt present a uniform, consistent message as the Bible can.

(i.e. early Popes and I know some denied Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, yet later ones accepted those beliefs, etc.)

By the time Roman Catholicisms unbiblical addition traditions (the papacy, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, etc) raised up in the historical record; the Bible was already finished and spread across the globe in certain places like Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. Yes, this is Gods truth.


Bye for now

By TruthSeeker
July 2, 2003
8:24 am. EST

6 Comments:

At 6:10 AM , Blogger Thankful Paul said...

Hello! :)

 
At 7:36 AM , Blogger Kyle said...

I have only had the chance to just skim through the post, it's quite long :), but thank you for posting this.
I am doing a class report on John Calvin and the Reformation and will use some of these Scripture references.

Stay in the Word, and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ

grace & peace,
-kyle

 
At 7:39 AM , Blogger Kyle said...

http://kyletower.blogspot.com

 
At 6:00 PM , Blogger Christopher said...

This is really sad, and reveals that you don't know jack about Catholicism, Jack.

For your reading pleasure, since you're so "intectual," here's something you might want to digest:

http://www.geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

 
At 4:50 PM , Blogger Timothy said...

I've studied Roman Catholicism for many years. So, you certainly don't know what you are talking about. I've debated Catholics as well. So, I know about Sola Scriptura regardless of what your site distorts.

By Timothy

 
At 4:50 PM , Blogger Timothy said...

This isn't sad, it's reality.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

_____________________
 
src="http://www.prolifeblogs.com/prolifeblogs6.gif" border="0">
 
Vote For TruthSeeker24's anti-NWO corner
at Conspiracy Top Sites

TopSiteList
Custom EU Cookies Notice by this Blog: This site uses cookies to help deliver services. By using this site, you agree to the use of cookies. Got It! Learn More