When the 16^th century Protestant reformers broke from the Catholic Church, they did so over two key principles, often called the pillars of the Reformation.  Sola Fide, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, was one.  This was dubbed the ‘material principle’ of the reformation by Philipp Melanchthon, Luther’s closest associate and primary author of the first Protestant statement of faith, the Augsburg Confession.  It was referred to as such because from this doctrine alone all of the concerns of the Lutheran reformers could be derived.  As important as Sola Fide is (and be not mistaken, it is crucial) to the differences between apostolic Christians and Protestants, it does rank second to the formal principle of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura.  This, as Protestants understand it, was the central doctrine which led to the split of Western Christianity.

            Indeed, Sola Fide is not considered of itself to have been the inspiration for the split, but rather the very Word of God.  After all, if Sola Fide was not understood to be the teaching of Christ, there would be no reason to hold to it.  The so-called formal principle, the principle which was cited as the reason behind all of the Reformers’ disagreements with Rome, states that Scripture alone is the authoritative rule for Christian doctrine.  If a doctrine is not in Scripture, it is rejected by the Protestants.  Ultimately, this doctrine stems from the desire of following only the teachings of the God the Saviour.  There is no question that this is a grave obligation.  If He who created the Heavens and the earth and has the power to destroy the soul as well as the body (Matthew 10:28) teaches something, one must follow it.  On the other hand, if He did not see fit to reveal something about Himself, it is probably best to avoid it.

            While all Christians agree with this much, the fundamental disagreement is what exactly God has revealed.  While there are many different definitions of Sola Scriptura, the most defendable states that Scripture is the only infallible authority for Christian doctrine.  According to this view, some traditions may be valid, but they must be subjected to the test of Scripture, and any in conflict are to be thrown out.  The Catholic teaching of the relationship between Scripture and tradition is best presented by the Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum:

 

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. (Paragraph 9)

 

The Catholic Church makes a distinction between Sacred Tradition, that teaching handed down from the Apostles, and other traditions, which are manmade and hold no Divine authority.  Because Sacred Tradition is considered a part of revelation to Catholics, it cannot contradict the Scriptures anymore than one Scripture could contradict another.  The Catholic teaching is thus not in practical contradiction to Sola Scriptura’s requirement that Traditions be subject to Scriptural testing, even if theoretically there is a disagreement.

            Insofar as this disagreement is concerned then, the question becomes whether Sacred Tradition is an infallible and authoritative source of Christian doctrine along with Scripture or whether Scripture alone holds this status.  There is one obvious test by which this question can be answered, and this is to investigate the Scriptures’ teaching on the matter.  If, as Sola Scriptura asserts, every Christian doctrine must be found in Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be found in Scripture.  If, on the other hand, it cannot be found, then Sola Scriptura cannot be true.  This would not prove the Catholic principle, but it would invalidate any of the various understandings of Sola Scriptura.

            When one does examine the Scriptures, support for Sola Scriptura is difficult to find.  All passages brought forth by proponents fail quickly upon inspection.  Revelation 22:18-19 says not to add anything to the prophecy of the book, but it can refer only to Revelation for several reasons, not the least of which is that the Scriptures were not collected together into a single book for nearly 300 years after its authorship.  Deuteronomy 4:2 fails for a similar reason, and would exclude the New Testament if it did teach Sola Scriptura.  1 Corinthians 4:6 is often brought forth as well, however linguistic, historical, and most importantly contextual examinations show this passage also to fail, most likely referring to a Semitic idiom, not to written Scripture.   

There is however one passage that holds promise for teaching Sola Scriptura according to the definition given above.  This passage is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.           

 

This passage cannot teach most understandings of Sola Scriptura, because it nowhere says Scripture alone is profitable, however it can be argued that Scripture is the only necessary rule of faith based on this passage.  The key lies in verse 17.  If teaching doctrine is a good work, which most would agree that it is, then the passage seems to teach that through Scripture, the man of God may thoroughly furnished to teach doctrine. 

In this case, there is no need for Sacred Tradition; Scripture alone would be sufficient to teach doctrine and to instruct in righteousness.  The case is strengthened by examining the original Greek text.  The word translated here as ‘thoroughly furnished’ is the Greek exartizo, which can be mean ‘sufficient.’  Additionally, the word rendered in English as ‘perfect’ is artios, the root of exartizo, a word which means ‘complete,’ or ‘whole.’  If one accepts that Scripture is infallible and authoritative, as all Christians do, then this would seem to be a strong argument for rejecting Sacred Tradition.  Even were the concept of Sacred Tradition true, according to this passage, it would seem to be unnecessary.  Further, it would be evident that anything not contained in Scripture would not in fact be a true Sacred Tradition anyways.  The case would seem to be air tight for the formal principle of the Reformation, and thus the material principle and all subordinate principles flowing from Sola Scriptura would in fact be correct.  The Catholic faith would utterly and inarguably be proven to be false.

            However, a further examination of the text shows the support for Sola Scriptura to be completely lacking and the teaching of Sacred Tradition to be abundantly clear.  In fact, this passage so often turned to by supporters of Sola Scriptura is perhaps the single most important text in opposition to the teaching.  The context of these verses is best understood by beginning the quotation at verse 12 and continuing through 17:

 

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.  But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.  But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The first item of note is that in verse 12 the context is set for this section of Paul’s epistle.  Here, his purpose is to warn Timothy about evil imposters who will come to deceive followers of Christ. This context is vitally important, because Paul is here concerned with the very problem the Reformers saw in the Church in their day.

In this passage, Paul provides his disciple Timothy, now a Church leader himself, with the antidote to deception the Reformers were looking for.  Writing, “but as for you,” he contrasts Timothy with the deceived and the deceivers.  'They are involved with deception,' he seems to say, 'but you, Timothy, will do this.’  Paul then provides two antidotes to the deception.

 

1)       Continue in what you have learned and believed and know who you have learned it from (14)

2)   Remember your familiarity with the Scriptures (15)

 

These two instructions perfectly represent the Catholic position on doctrine. 

The first point constitutes the Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition.  Paul instructs Timothy to remember what has learned and remember who it was from.  These are those things which Paul has taught Timothy.  It is necessary for Timothy to know who he learned them from to ensure that they are of Divine origin.  Those teachings from Paul (or the other apostles) would be, while teachings from other sources would not be.  Catholic Sacred Tradition is understood in the same way.  It is the teaching that was passed down from the apostles themselves.  Even today Catholics can follow Paul’s instruction.  Men such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus learned directly from Peter, Paul, and John, and they have left many writings behind. Even as Sacred Tradition is preserved today in the official teachings of the Church, it can be “remembered” who it came from by reading the works of these disciples of the apostles.  From the first recorded use of the word ‘Catholic’ to describe the Church by Ignatius in 107 AD to Irenaues’ teachings on the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the second century to Clement’s exercise of his papal authority a mere 60 years after Christ, the Traditions of the Church are easy to find among the writings of these early leaders.

The second point Paul makes is to encourage Timothy to remember the Scriptures.  Here Protestants have no disagreement.  Both agree that the Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction.  The difference is in whether or not Scripture is sufficient.  One problem with this reading is that it would seem to make unnecessary Paul’s previous commands.  However, this is not necessarily so.  At the time Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy, the New Testament did not yet exist; some of the books contained therein had yet even to be written.  Thus, it would seem appropriate for Paul to command Timothy to remember the Christian doctrines which he had been taught while relying on the Jewish (Old Testament) Scriptures as well. 

Given this, Protestants present an interesting suggestion: Sola Scriptura is a doctrine for the normative condition of the Church.  In other words, it is a doctrine which did not yet function during the abnormal period when Scripture was being compiled (a process referred to as ‘enscripturation’) but was to be held to during all other periods of Church history.  This view asserts that the apostles, while alive, were to be looked to as the authoritative rule of faith.  Once they had passed on and the authority given them by Christ with them, the Scriptures were then to be looked to exclusively for matters of doctrine.  Thus, Paul’s command to Timothy to remember his teachings from Paul would be consistent with his declaration that Scripture was sufficient.  The case would seem to be quite strong for the Protestant position.

However, even accepting that exartizo does mean completely sufficient in this case (which is by no means linguistically certain), it would not actually require that the Scriptures make the man of God thoroughly furnished in and of themselves.  To understand this, consider a knight.  One might say, ‘A sword, made by the greatest of smiths, is profitable for battle, defense, competition, and to slay the mightiest dragon, that the brave knight may be perfect, fully furnished unto every chivalrous work.’  It is obvious that even given the usage of the same strong phraseology applied to the Scriptures by Paul, the sword alone is not sufficient to make the knight fully furnished unto every chivalrous work.  Given that the knight already possesses mail, armor, gauntlets, a helmet, and a mighty steed, the sword does make him fully furnished.  However, it does this by completion, not by self-sufficiency.  This comparison illustrates that the most this passage requires is that Scriptures make a thoroughly furnished when added to what is already possessed. 

Further consideration reveals that this is in fact Paul’s explicit teaching on the matter.  Specifically, his commendation of the Scriptures is to Timothy.  The preceding verses point out that he already has Paul's teachings, and the very command which directs him to the Scriptures does so given the presupposition that Timothy is already a man of God.  In fact, Paul’s says that it is for the man of God that they are profitable; to be such a man is a prerequisite.  This raises the question of what constitutes a man of God.  If this passage teaches any form of Sola Scriptura, then knowing that one is a man of God is necessary according to the passage.  Ultimately, the attempt to answer this question becomes an endless loop of circular reasoning which runs something as this:  Scripture is sufficient to show who the man of God is, but one must be a man of God for Scripture to be sufficient, so he must look to Scripture to see if he is a man of God, but Scripture is not sufficient unless one is a man of God, so he must look to Scripture to see if he is, but he must be a man of God for Scripture to be sufficient, and so on and so on into eternity.  Put in a perhaps less confusing way, if one is not a man of God, Scripture is insufficient to show him that he is not so he cannot know that he is not, while on the other hand, even one who is a man of God cannot know that he is because he first has to look to the Scriptures to determine that he is, which he cannot because he does not know whether he is a man of God or not.

Even ignoring this somewhat confusing difficulty, other details show that the passage would teach far too much if it indeed did teach Scriptural sufficiency.  First, if it did teach sufficiency, it would mean that God’s grace is not required to make one perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  All Christians recognize that God’s grace is necessary for any and all good works; this fact is so important that it was a key principle for the Protestant reformers.  Given that the passage teaches Scripture fully furnishes unto all good works, it must do this by completion or else exclude even God’s grace as necessary for one who has the Scriptures.  The instant one states that grace is necessary for good works, he accepts that something beyond Scripture is required and thus Scripture is insufficient of itself.

Second, as has been mentioned, the passage refers only to the Jewish Scriptures.  The Protestant suggestion that Sola Scriptura is only valid for the normative condition of the Church fails because the epistle was written to a real person, Timothy, who was to follow its commands even during the period of enscripturation.  If the passage does in fact teach Scripture as sufficient, then Timothy would have understood it to mean that the Jewish Scriptures were sufficient.  Even though it does refer today to all the Scriptures available, whatever the passage teaches today it also taught to Timothy, and so to Timothy it referred to all the Scriptures he had available.  Therefore, if it does in fact teach that whatever is understood to be Scripture is sufficient, then Timothy would have understood it to mean that the Jewish Scriptures were sufficient and would have had no need to follow Paul’s instructions to remember those things he learned from the apostles.

Paul, however, made it a point to tell Timothy to remember what he had learned and from who, and just as what the Scriptures teach today applied in Timothy’s day, so too does what they taught in his day apply today.   This means that the command to remember what was learned and who it was learned from must be held by Christians today.  Paul wrote a similar command to the Thessalonians, instructing them to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)  Just as is the case with his instruction to Timothy, Paul’s command to the Thessalonians is also given as an antidote for deception.  The apostle is consistent in pairing his commendation to Scripture with a commendation to oral teachings, and is consistent in presenting them together as the means to avoid heresy.  He seems to see the two as being somehow complimentary, in the same manner as the Catholic Church.  Most importantly, there is no command in Scripture to cease holding to these traditions and to rely entirely on Scripture.  If the Sola Scriptura was to be held during the normative condition of the Church, the doctrine would require that this statement itself be found in Scripture.  

Third, other passages of the Scriptures make statements about things other than Scripture which are similar to the one in Second Timothy.  The most notable of these is Ephesians 4:11-14:

 

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

 

The word rendered here as ‘perfecting’ is katartizo, and just like exartizo it is derived from artios. If artios does mean sufficient, then so does katartizo.  In fact, whereas the preposition ex used to form exartizo means  can mean ‘highly,’ ‘heartily,’ ‘exceedingly,’ or ‘abundantly,’ the preposition kata used to form katartizo can mean ‘alone,’ ‘apart,’ or ‘uttermost.’ Thus, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches the sufficiency of Scripture for thoroughly furnishing unto all good works, then Ephesians 4:11-14 teaches that apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers are sufficient, even sufficient alone, to make the saints thoroughly perfect for the work of ministry, of building up the body of Christ, of bringing unity of faith, and of bringing knowledge of the Son of God.  Most importantly, it would teach that they are sufficient to avoid false doctrine and deceit.  Ephesians 4 specifically mentions all those things that 2 Timothy 3 does and more.  The passage in Second Timothy, the single strongest passage that can be found to teach Sola Scriptura, simply cannot teach that Scripture alone is sufficient; if it did, it would contradict Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 4.

Ultimately, Sola Scriptura fails because it fails to take into account the new status of the Church as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).  A bulwark is a fortification, a defense, a barricade, while a pillar is a structure which holds something up.  Paul’s teaching is that the Church is a structure designed to hold up the truth, and to be a fortification and defense of it.  She must this be incapable of teaching error; were she so capable, she simply would not be a pillar and bulwark of the truth.  In each case that Paul addresses the issue of avoiding deception and clinging to truth, he mentions both Scripture and Tradition.  These Traditions which were delivered to Timothy, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the other early Church leaders has been passed down through the generations by the Catholic Church.    

The concern Protestants have is that Scripture is fixed and unchangeable, whereas Sacred Tradition seems to be so open to corruption over time.  However, H

 

HPaul was confident that the Traditions would be preserved accurately because he knew that the Holy Spirit would guard them.  Earlier in the epistle to Timothy in which he commended him to Scripture and Tradition, Paul wrote:

 

For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he [Christ] is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. (2 Tim 1:12-14)

           

He specifically states that the “sound words” Timothy has heard from him will be guarded by Christ through the Holy Spirit.  This is just one of many places in the New Testament where this protection is promised and taught of.  It is for this reason that Paul had no concern with laying down the principle of the handing on of Tradition, telling Timothy, “the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2)  In fact, Scripture must and does have the same protection.  Without the Holy Spirit, there could be no more certainty that written Scriptures could not be distorted and corrupted than there could be that oral teachings could not be. 

With Sacred Tradition, the Church can get so far long the path to perfection, but only with Scripture can it make it all the way. Similarly, with Scripture, the Church can get so far along the path, but can only go all the way with Sacred Tradition.