Q: Scripture. What should we make of tradition? What does Scripture say is tradition? What of Scripture? How Scripture functions. What about the Pope?, and who is a Christian? Paul's writings clarity *

Answers regarding Traditions, Scripture, how Scripture functions, what about the Pope, are Paul's writings Scripture, which books are Scripture, and who is a Christian. 

Are traditions and the Scriptures one deposit of the one Word of God? No. Jesus clearly distinguished between the Word of God and the traditions "of men". 

Peter called Paul's writings part of the other Scriptures [beyond the OT], he was already referring to Paul's writings as Scripture, and Paul referred to Luke's writings as Scripture. He even quoted Acts as, as much as canonical status as the book of Deuteronomy. And then in 1 Cor. 4:6 Paul instructs that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, do not go beyond what is written. 

So there's already a saying in the church, right at the beginning, about tradition, good tradition, and it clearly tells us not to go beyond what is in Scripture. Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other, see you'd like to pick out an Apostle or Apollos, no actually it's sola scriptura that creates unity rather that division. That's what they all explained. 

Polycarp a disciple of John, quotes many passages of Scripture especially Ephesians and the Psalms as equal. He quotes them as Scripture. The same is true as the letters Clement of Rome and Barnabas. In fact, noted Prinston scholar Bruce Meder said that even if we lost all of the early New Testament manuscripts, we could reconstruct almost all of the NT simply from the quotations you find in the earliest church fathers.

That's another important question, how did Scripture function? It's not just quotes cherry-picking quotes. How did Scripture function, did it function differently from tradition in the ancient church? Yes. Some examples: The Corinthians were in a mess just as they were in Paul's day and Clement wrote on the heels of Paul and he upbraided [scolding] them because a bunch of young guys in the church overthrow the elders, the ruling council of elders. They deposed them illegally, contrary to the Word of Christ. So its a disciplinary letter. He said let us out aside vain errors and come to the glorious and venerable canon of our tradition. He doesnt say "canon". He doesnt say canon and tradition. He says the canon of our tradition; the canon of the Christian Faith. He exhibits this drawing support from Matt, Luke, 1 Cor., Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Titus, 1 Tim and Hebrews, & with illusions to Acts, calling them Scripture. And again this is in the late 1st century. We could go on and on with Clement, but on to the Merritorians fragment in 170 AD which provides a list of canonical Scripture, allowed to be read in Church. Now there was no reason for a list until heretics came along to add their own cartoonish versions of the Gospel, and so at that point churches had to say "No, those have never been allowed to be read in church." "Allowed to be read in public" was a sign that it's God's Word, remember Paul told Timothy not only to preach the Word, but to read the Scriptures. And so the public reading of the Scriptures was a very important part of liturgy(1). And that already is a canon. It's a working functioning Canon because those were the only letters and gospels, and narratives and laws that were allowed to be read in public worship. 

Erynaeus said "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us [the Apostles] which they did at one time proclaim in public and at a later period, by the will of God, hand down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our Faith." Not traditions of men, only the Scriptures. In fact, Irenaeus goes on to say "It's the gnostics who profer(2) oral tradition", [Jesus spoke to Paul, or Mary Magdalene, or Judas or Peter and we have this oral tradition], and Erya says no. We have the Scriptures now. The tradition is laid down in the written Word, the Holy Scriptures, so do not go beyond that. And Clement of Alexandria in thec2nd Century says "The ecclesiatical canon IS the concord and symphony of the Law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even Origen dlsaud, "We understand the Truth of we listen to Paul's words as the very words of God. And he says, "Do not go beyond the Canon, even through teachers like me." Even today if preachers stray from the canon they stray from the rule of Faith. And that's the thing, "rule of faith" was like an early Creed, a summary of the Bible. It wasn't another authority "alongside" the Bible. It was only authoritative because it was the consensual reading of the Bible by the church over and against the Heresies who were contradicting it. The fact that the Bible [the 66 books] is so clear, it can be summariz3d by the whole church. Think of the Nicean Creed over all these centuries attests to the fact that it's not "a confusing book" [as the Roman Catholic religion claims (it's confising to them because they do not know God or Jesus and do not have the Holy Spirit. Theyre still dead in their sins, the blind leading the blind. Just as the Orthodox and cults are].

Tertullian writes, "This rule as it will be proved was taught by Christ and raises amongst us no other questions than those heresies introduce, and which makes men heretics."

The rule of Faith is a summary of Scripture, not a tradition alongside Scripture, but a summary of Scripture. Tertullian says Scripture itself is not obscure. Here's what he says, "When you read, [talking to lay people; average people], you can have my same level of understanding of the mystery of Christ. We have however put these opinions of the heretics to the test both the arguments which sustain them and the Scriptures which are appealed to, and this we have done abundantly." Notice the orthodox and the heretics appealed to Scriptures; even heretics had to appeal to the Scriptures in order to twist them. The Scriptures had a place in the true Church that was so distinct from any [other] authority that even the heretics had to use Bible verses to try to prove their theories. And finally Tertullian says "This rule was taught by Christ and is simply that very Faith to which the Scriptures belong. Wherever the Word is rightly preached, there is the true Church". So to the Gnostics he says, silence, silence on your blasphemy. He continues, "Let us be content with saying Christ died for the Son of the Father and let this office because the Scriptures have told us this much, for even the Apostle to his declaration which he made not without feeling the weight of it, that Christ died" and immediately adds 'according to the Scriptures'."

That's how distinct the Authority of Scripture was in the pre-Nicean Church, and then if we move up to the Nicean Fathers, in 367 Athanasius listed 27, all 27 New Testament books, even calling them a canon.

The whole point of a canon in Greek "canon" is a rule, sort of like a ruler, and in feet and inches are measured by it. The rulervisnt measured by anything, it IS the measure. And that's why we call Scripture "Canon", and that's why the earliest Church Fathers call the Scriptures Canon. He added, "The Holy & inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth." The sufficient of the Scripture is sola scriptura. 

Sirill the Bishop of Jerusalem writing about the same time in the 4th century said to the catechists [people becoming Christian, before theyre baptized, he's teaching and instructing them first), he said, " You should examine my lectures." Hes saying right now you need to learn the rule of faith because many of you cant even read, but afterwards you need to be able to read the Scriptures, so that you can teat whethervwhat I am saying is true. Like the Bereans and so he said I will teach you, then Scriptural proves later. "For concerning the divine and Holy mysteries of the Faith. Not even a casual statement can be delivered without the Holy Scriptures (even to me who tell you these things). Give not absolute credence unless you receive 'the proof' of the things which I announce from the divine Scriptures, for this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning but on demonstration from The Holy Scriptures." Infact he says the Rule of Faith or the Creed is Authoritative ONLY BECAUSE [he says] "it includes the most important points chosen from all Scriptures. And expect at the fitting season the proof I will give of each part - from the divine Scriptures."

Basil the Great, in the 4th century pointed out that "traditions vary from place to place" Isnt that interesting? It isnt tradition that holds the Church together. Traditions vary from place to place. Then what holds the Church together? He says, "Therefore, let God inspired Scripture." This is what distinguishes Scripture from everything else. It's inspired by God. He goes on, "Therefore let God inspired Scripture [the 66 books] decide between us and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will we cast the vite." Basil's more philosophical younger brother Gregory of Nissa warned that "The nature of the soul can't be determined from the philosophers" adding "We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming whatever we please, we make the Holy Scripture the rule and norm of every tenent.'" Sola Scriptura. The sole rule of Faith and practice. The norm. The Rule. The Canon. 

John Chrysum, the bishop of Constantinople, in the 4th century, said, "Let us not therfore carry about by the notions of the many, but examine the facts. Wherefore I exhort and entreated you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things, and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things." Moreover he says, "Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the 'Scripture proofs', so I will not seem to rely on my own 'opinions', but rather 'prove' them 'with Scripture', so that the matter will remain certian and steadfast."

Also, in the West, in the 4th century, Ambrose of Milan said, "I do not wish that credence be given us, let 'the Scripture' be quoted." Just the Church Fathers. I love the Church Fathers, I love the [true] Church tradition, because - the tradition bows to the Scriptures. The Roman Catholic religion does not. Ambrose says, "not of myself down I say 'In the beginning was the Word', but I hear it. I do not fain, but I read what we all." Similarly Augustine in the 4th century said, "Let the heretics show their 'church' if they can. Not by their speeches & mumblings. Not by the councils of their bishops. Not by their writings of any of their champions. Not by fraudulent signs & wonders. Because we've been prepared and made cautious against these by the word of the Lord, but let them show their 'church' by a certian church order." A pope perhaps? "No let them show their 'church' by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the Evangelists, that is by all the canonical Scriptures, the authorities of the sacred books. What more can I teach you than what we read in the apostle. For Holy Scripture sets 'a rule' to our teaching, that we dare not be wise more than it behoove us to be wise, but be wise as he says unto soberness according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith." And then his famous letter to Jerime, Augustine said, "I've learned to yield this respect and honor Only to the canonical books of Holy Scripture. Of these alone [sola scriptura] do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error." See, that's what makes Sola Scriptura, sola scriptura. It's not the decision of the Church [ or a self proclaiming 'Church' ] to give authority to these books. They're the Only writings we have, that the Holy Spirit actually inspired. And so he says "As to all other writings in reading them, however great the superiotity of the authors, to myself in sanctity of learning, I do Not accept even their teaching as 'true' on the mere grounds of 'the opinion being held by them', but Only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth-- from -- the canonical writings themselves." Isn't that what the Reformer Luther said? "I will recant, I will retract everything that I've said... if you can prove to me from the Holy Scriptures that what I've said is in error." (3)

Augustine said, "The excellence of the canonical Authority of the Old and New Teataments is distinct from all the books of later writers." 

So then Church Fathers clearly teach Sola Scriptura.

What's interesting is that even Pope Benedict [of the Catholic religion] in the 16th century conceded that presbyter and episcopos(4) were used interchangeably in the NT & in the early churches there was NO Pope. Only pastors and elders, overseers and decons. And in fact, the Roman Catholic/Anglican dialogue called Arcic 2, the Vatican acknowledged (quote) "The New Testament texts offer NO sufficient basis for PayPal primacy." Which we've also seen clearly from here, it was presbyters obey the presbyter. There were no bishops in the earliest Church communities. 

Look at Gregory the Great in the 6th century. The Pope in the 6th century was offended when a bishop called him 'universal Pope'. Declaring that "It is a word of proud address that I have forbidden. None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word 'universal'." [*And yet that's what the bishop of bishop of Rome came to be called, "The Universal Pope".] Gregory said, "But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself 'Universal Bishop' or wishes to be so-called is in his self-exaltation antichrist's precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest." So should we believe the Pope of the 6th century or the Pope of today? And should it be said that the view that RCC takes on this was not necessarily the view that even in the middle ages. There were many major theologians who affirmed Sola Scriptura. One in particular, Thomas Aquinus. He said, "Sola canonica Scriptura es regular fiede". Canonical Scripture is the Only rule of Faith. And that is what we say in our Protestant confessions. Scripture is the only rule for faith and practice. Aquinus quotes Paul's anathema on those who preach another gospel, and then he says "The reason is that only canonical Scripture is the measure of faith." [Sola Scriptura]. "Others so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save in so far as they say true things" and against those who we say shouldn't have any credle subscription because of Sola Scriptura he says, "This was no addition to Holy writ, but something taken from it." And then he couldn't be clearer in stating sola scriptura when he said, "The Church Fathers are valuable, never the less, sacred doctrine makes use of the authorities of the Fathers as extrinsic and probable arguments, but 'properly' uses the Authority of Canonical Scripture as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of doctrines of the church as one that may be properly used, yet merely as probable. For our Faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, & not on the revelations, if there are any such made to othe doctors." Hence Augustine says, "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical, have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors not to have erred in anything that they wrote, but other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having said it, whatever may be their holiness snd learning." This is the view of Thomas Aquinus the greatest theologian of the middle ages.

Sola Scriptura is based on the clarity of the Apostolic word. It is the only thing we have as a Church that can be called a Canon. And so the traditions of our Canon is the tradition of Sola Scriptura, as it was with the esrly Church Fathers, and as it should be for believers today. Let us follow the Church Fathers in their following Sola Scriptura, guided by witness of the Apostles, myrters, the Reformers over 2 millenia. Let us hold to the asvice of Gregory of Nissa in the 4th century. Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of Truth will be given to whose dogmas are found to agree with the divine words. And remembering John Chrysum, the bishop of Constantinople, in the 4th century, whose pastoral advice sounds remarkably contemporary, "There comes a heathen and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join. There's so much fighting and faction among [churches who claim to be Christian], so with so much confusion, which doctrine am I to choose? At this point does he say 'Well then we need a Pope, we need an infallible magisterium.' How shall we answer him? Each of you says he asserts 'I speak the Truth'. No doubt, for this is in our favor, for if we told you to be persuaded by arguments you might well be perplexed, but if tell you to believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures he is the Christian. If any fight against them, he's far from this 'Rule'."

Related

What is the Gospel?

What are the Essentials of Christianity

Return to examining the Catholic Religion 

Return to examining the Orthodox Religion 

Go to Believers Resources

<<< return to Prev Page 

Footnotes

(1) "liturgy," it refers to a form or system of public worship. It includes the rituals, prayers, and ceremonies that are part of the orderly worship service. 

(2) "profer" means present something for acceptance.

(3) Luther, while nervous to attend, after RCC labeled him a heretic, and wuth a fear he could be arrested, punished and die, went with courage boldly to at the Diet of Worms in 1521, a formal assembly of the Holy Roman Empire, to the Roman Emperor Charles V and the assembly of RC leaders and nobles gathered there], and said that quote as he spoke to them. 

(4) episcopos is a Greek term that translates to "overseer" or "bishop" in English. In the context of Christianity, it refers to a church leader or bishop who has the authority to oversee a group of congregations. The role of an episcopos includes spiritual leadership, teaching, and administering the sacraments. The term is often associated with the hierarchical structure of church governance, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic religion, and some Protestant denominations.

(4) Info from Michael Horton, 2025