Isn't the Bible the sole rule of faith?


This is yet another heresy from the Protestant Revolt called sola scriptura (scripture alone). It was condemned by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the ecumenical council called to refute the errors of Martin Luther.

Bible Denies Sola Scriptura

The Bible itself denies it is the sole source of divine revelation. John tells us that everything Jesus taught
was not committed to writing (John 21:25).The Apostle Paul tell the Bishop Timothy that what he has heard from Paul is to be passed on to others who will teach it faithfully (II Timothy 2:2). St. Paul also tells the Thessalonians to hold to what they have been taught "by word of mouth or by letter" (II Thessalonians 2:15).

St. Luke tells us that the first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" that they
heard through preaching (Acts 2:42). And why was the truth transmitted by the apostles orally? Because Jesus commanded them to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15). St. Paul clearly understood that he and the other apostles were to teach Jesus' divine revelation in this way, and that Christians were to accept it (Romans 10:17).

Logic, Reason, History

If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, what did Christians do in the early centuries? And why did no one even attempt to raise the issue until Luther did in 1517—a millennium and a half after Christ? Not a word of the New Testament was even written until at least twenty years after Jesus returned to the Father, and the New Testament only came into existence as the Bible by decree of the Council of Carthage in AD 397. In essence, then, all of Jesus' teachings were handed down by word of mouth until 397.

Sacred Tradition

Handing down sacred truths by word of mouth is called Sacred Tradition. Tradition was nothing new to the Jews, who made up the totality of the early Church. St. Matthew, who was a Jew before he answered Jesus' call, demonstrates his own acceptance of Tradition.

In telling us about Jesus' infancy, Matthew writes:

"And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled. 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" (Matthew 2:23)

There are two interesting points to be made from this passage, one building on the other.

The first is, an exhaustive search of the Old Testament will not yield a single prophet who tells that the messiah would be called a Nazarene. It's simply not there.

The second is a key word in Matthew's phrase concerning the prophet. He said it was
spoken by the prophet, not written, as it is usually done in the Gospels. This demonstrates Matthew's belief in Sacred Tradition, and explains why a prophet saying Jesus would be called a Nazarene can't be found in the Old Testament.

sola scriptura can't possibly be right. Divine Revelation does not come from a single source, but three: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium.
blog comments powered by Disqus

We take your privacy seriously. We only use your information if you sign up to our email list, and all your information stays strictly confidential. We do not sell, rent or otherwise allow third-parties access to our list.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner