Sit Down First
TopicsWalk me through itMy choice

Scripture, Tradition and the Church

Is the Bible alone the final rule of faith, or the Bible read with the Church’s Tradition and teaching office?

The passage it turns on

But you remain in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them. From infancy, you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:14-17In context. Paul to Timothy, near the end of Paul’s life: hold to the Scriptures he learned as a child, which are breathed out by God and make the man of God complete and equipped.

Paul tells Timothy to hold what he learned from people he trusts: that is tradition, living teaching from a teacher. The Scripture Timothy knew from infancy was the Old Testament; the New Testament did not yet exist as a collection. Scripture is “profitable”, not described as sufficient on its own.

Scripture is the one thing in the New Testament called God-breathed, and Paul says it equips the man of God to be complete, lacking nothing he needs. If Scripture can do that, a second infallible source is not needed, and nothing else is given that description anywhere.

Press a reading to put the lamp behind the words that side leans on. The passage does not change.

Why this question comes first

Nearly every other disagreement on these pages comes back to this one. Catholics hold that God’s word comes through Scripture and through Tradition handed down from the apostles, both guarded by the bishops teaching with the pope (the magisterium). Protestants hold that Scripture is the only infallible rule, and that creeds, councils and teachers are weighed by it.

Both sides agree that Scripture is God-breathed and without error. Both use tradition and reason. The dispute is about what has the last word when they seem to disagree.

The points people make

Does the New Testament hand on an unwritten Tradition?

But we are bound to always give thanks to God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth; to which he called you through our Good News, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15In context. Paul to the Thessalonians, after warning about the man of lawlessness: stand firm and hold the traditions he taught them, by word of mouth and by letter.

Scripture is silent on it. Scripture says the apostles taught by word as well as by letter. It is silent on whether that spoken teaching survives today as something apart from the New Testament.

The Catholic reading

Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold the traditions he taught “by word or by letter”, praises the Corinthians for keeping the traditions he delivered, and tells Timothy to pass on what he heard to faithful men. The apostles’ teaching was handed down in the churches before and alongside the letters.

“Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”

Vatican II, Dei Verbum 9, 1965

The Protestant reading

Every tradition Paul names in those letters is apostolic teaching that the apostles themselves gave; the New Testament is that teaching written down. No one can show a specific doctrine the apostles taught orally that is absent from their writings and present in later Rome.

“Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the Apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture.”

John MacArthur, Ligonier, 2021

Jesus and the traditions of men

The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?” He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.” He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother;’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God”;’ then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.”

Mark 7:5-13In context. Jesus answering Pharisees who asked why his disciples ate with unwashed hands: they set aside God’s commandment to keep their own tradition, the korban rule that let a man withhold support from his parents.

Scripture states it. Jesus condemns a tradition that sets aside God’s written command, and both sides affirm it. Whether any Catholic doctrine does so is the argument of the other pages.

The Catholic reading

Jesus condemns a particular Pharisaic tradition that set aside a command of God. He does not condemn tradition as such; he kept the synagogue and the feasts, and the Church’s Tradition is by definition what the apostles taught, never something that overrides Scripture.

“This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on”

Vatican II, Dei Verbum 10, 1965

The Protestant reading

Jesus measures a tradition by the written word and finds it wanting, and he treats Scripture as the standard a tradition must answer to. That is the principle of sola scriptura in his own practice: tradition is judged by Scripture, never the other way.

“unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

Westminster Confession 1.6, 1646

Who gave us the Bible, and which books?

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea. When they arrived, they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed; also of the prominent Greek women, and not a few men.

Acts 17:10-12In context. Luke’s record of Paul and Silas in Berea: the Jews there heard Paul gladly and checked what he said against the Scriptures every day. Luke calls this noble.

Scripture is silent on it. No passage lists the books of the Bible. The Bereans tested Paul against the Scriptures they had, and Scripture does not say which collection that was; Jesus speaks of “the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms” (Luke 24:44). Which books belong was settled by history and by each church’s authority, not by a verse.

The Catholic reading

The Bible has no inspired table of contents. The books were recognised by the Church over centuries, and the Old Testament used by the apostles was the Greek Septuagint, which held the seven books Protestants later dropped (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees). Trent confirmed what councils at Hippo and Carthage listed in the 390s.

“It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church 120

The Protestant reading

Jesus and the apostles quote the Hebrew canon and never cite those seven books as Scripture. Jerome, who made the Latin Bible, said they were read for edification, not for doctrine, and that unease lasted into the sixteenth century. The Church recognised the canon; it did not create it, as a jeweller recognises gold.

“so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”

Jerome, Preface to the Books of Solomon, about 398

Who decides what Scripture means?

We have the more sure word of prophecy; and you do well that you heed it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star arises in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-21In context. Peter, having described the Transfiguration he witnessed, says the prophetic word is surer still: no prophecy of Scripture is “of private interpretation”, for holy men spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them.

Scripture’s words can be read more than one way. Peter says “no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation”, for holy men spoke “being moved by the Holy Spirit”. Whether he means where prophecy came from or who may interpret it can be read more than one way. Elsewhere Scripture shows believers testing an apostle against Scripture (Acts 17:11) and a reader needing someone to explain it (Acts 8:31).

The Catholic reading

Peter says Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), and the Ethiopian needed Philip to explain Isaiah. Thousands of Protestant groups reading the same Bible reach opposite conclusions on baptism and the Supper; a living teaching office is what keeps a church from that.

“the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church 83

The Protestant reading

Peter’s point in 2 Peter 1 is where prophecy came from, not who may read it. The Bereans were praised for checking an apostle against Scripture. Catholics disagree among themselves too, and Rome has formally defined the meaning of only a few verses in two thousand years.

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man”

Thirty-nine Articles, Article 6, 1571

The Church speaking with authority

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brothers. They wrote these things by their hand: “The apostles, the elders, and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings. Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law,’ to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves will also tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.”

Acts 15:22-29In context. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem, after the dispute over Gentile converts, send a letter with their decision: no circumcision required, a few things to abstain from, ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us’.

Scripture is silent on it. Acts 15 shows the first church settling a question in council and expecting obedience. Scripture is silent on whether later councils carry the same authority.

The Catholic reading

In Acts 15 a council of apostles and elders settles a dispute Scripture alone had not settled, and sends its ruling to the churches as what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us”. That is the Church teaching with authority, and Catholics say it never stopped.

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority”

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2, about 180

The Protestant reading

The council reasons from Scripture (James quotes Amos) and from what God had done, and it is made up of apostles, whose office was unique. Protestants honour councils; they hold that councils can err, as the Arian councils of the fourth century did.

“Sola Scriptura is the statement that the church can err”

Gavin Ortlund, quoting Anthony Lane, in a Gospel Coalition review, 2024

Watch

One talk from each side, chosen for making its own case well. Each loads from YouTube only when you press play.

The Counsel of Trent. 18 min. Trent Horn argues that the first Christians used the longer Greek Old Testament, with the seven books Protestants later set aside. Open on YouTube
Gavin Ortlund. 29 min. Gavin Ortlund on how the Old Testament canon was settled, and why he holds that Protestants did not remove books. Open on YouTube

Sources on this page

Every quotation above, with the page it comes from and the day it was read. Primary documents first where a side has one.