Rome’s Special Revelation - Sola Scriptura Pt 7

I’ve written 6 blogs on Sola Scriptura and I have barely scratched the surface of the subject. What I’ve presented so far, and will continue to present, is a justification of the biblical and historical view of Sola Scriptura. Overall, too many in the Protestant church are sitting on the sidelines content to be ignorant of most biblical doctrines and historical topics. Who would know how to refute the Mormon? The Jehovah’s Witness? The Muslim? The Catholic? The secularist? Or does the Gospel of Jesus Christ no longer matter? Too many “christians” are too engrossed in the “flavor of the month” Christianity to realize how much of the Gospel they are conceding to the devil and the secular world around them, and Sola Scrptura is just one of the dozens of truths being surrendered. Too few Christians and churches know how to prepare and equip themselves and their people to engage in this battle for truth, so it is my hope that these blogs will do just that, equip believers to properly understand and defend Sola Scriptura.

In my previous blog, General and Special Revelation, Special Revelation was defined as, “how God has chosen to reveal Himself through miraculous means. Special revelation includes physical appearances of God, dreams, visions, the written Word of God, and most importantly—Jesus Christ.” For Roman Catholicism, this is extended to extrabiblical, oral tradition, and has been affirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), Vatican I (1869-1870) and Vatican II (1962-1965). 

I will generally go back to the Council of Trent because this 18 yr long council was the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) answer to the Protestant Reformation and enshrined a lot of beliefs that Protestants disagree with. One of those disagreements is with their concept of special revelation.

Trent states that the special revelation of God through Christ, the ‘source of every saving truth and instruction in morals’ in which he has commanded to be preached throughout the world is contained in ‘the written books and in the unwritten traditions,’ teaching that special revelation is contained today in two sources, the written Scriptures and the unwritten oral tradition.” [2] [emphasis added]

And how this works its way out in the RCC’s teachings is to state, among other things, as Catholic theologian G. Van Noort writes,

The Catholic Church … contends that the doctrine of salvation was not given to the Church in Scripture exclusively, and that it was not all written down under divine inspiration. [3] [emphasis added] 

So, that would seem to mean that salvation is not solely by faith, as is frequently and consistently presented in Scripture. And ‘salvation by faith’ is what Martin Luther rediscovered in Scripture and what he stood on against the RCC, and what ultimately ignited the fire that became the Protestant Reformation. But I digress, or do I? 

Former 19th century archbishop and theologian, James Cardinal Gibbons wrote: 

The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles included certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers (John 21:25) … We must conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot by a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation. [4] [emphasis added]

Are they sure about that claim? Because this certainly was not the view of the early church fathers, nor virtually any church father up to the middle ages. So what are we to make of Acts 16:22-31? The jailer was going to kill himself because God brought an earthquake to free Paul and Silas from jail. And after Paul calls out to prevent the jailer from taking his own life, the jailer asks, “What must I do to be saved?” And Paul's answer was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Was Paul a liar? Did he not understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Of course not! And I could add at least another 20 verses / passages here to prove the point that Noort and Gibbins are professing something other than the Gospel of Jesus. And that is the resultant effect of a faulty concept of Special Revelation based on an unwritten oral tradition that cannot be demonstrated to have ever existed. But you need proof, right? Well, here you go.

Vatican II reaffirmed this two source theory of Revelation of sacred Scripture and “sacred tradition”,

Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same devine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence. [5]

Noort confirms this two source teaching as well, saying,

Yet since a large and important part of that revelation was committed to writing both before and after the time of Christ the Church is accustomed to speak of the two sources of revelation, oral tradition and Scripture … We acknowledge on the authority of the Church the existence of two sources and principal points which must be held with regard to their nature and use … (Scripture and Tradition) those two storehouses, which are sources of revelation … [6] [emphasis added]

I could quote a number of other Catholic theologians, but they are all saying the same thing - written Scripture and unwritten Tradition are equal to one another in authority. Even more, they are telling us that one cannot exist without the other; they must walk arm in arm. I need tradition to understand and complete Scripture. The consistent teaching of the RCC from Trent until today is that there are two sources of revelation: Scripture and Tradition. And the adding of Tradition is the reason for the differences that will always exist between Protestantism and Catholicism. 

Why the Protestants Disagree

It is extremely hard to find common ground with a belief system that professes that the salvation clearly laid out in Scripture is incomplete, and that Scripture is therefore effectively wrong about its presentation of justification and salvation. So, that you are clear about what is being said, the RCC is saying that these verses are incomplete or wrong: John 1:12; 3:16, 17, 36; 14:6; Eph 1:7, 13; 2:5, 8; Act 4:12; Act 10:42-43; Mat 1:21; Mark 16:16; Rom 1:17; 3:23, 28, 30; 4:3; 5:1, 2, 8-9, 10; 10:10; Gen 15:6; Gal 2:16, 3:6, 8; Tit 3:5-7; 1 Tim 1:12; Php 3:9; 1 Pet 1:5-6 [7], and Scripture requires unwritten traditions that never existed in the early church for the first 400 yrs of its existence!

In his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, David King wrote,

The Church of Rome claims that she possesses an authoritative, extrabiblical oral tradition originating with the apostles themselves. However, though repeatedly declared in Roman Catholic documents, this theory is an unsubstantiated claim and nothing more. No Roman apologist has ever been able to define or produce the doctrinal content of this oral tradition. All that is ever asserted is that a content for these traditions does exist, but the inability to establish an historical, objective link for these traditions, traceable to the apostles, proves the spurious nature of such claims. [8] [emphasis added]

But the former professor and president of Westminster Seminary, Robert Godfrey, pointed out the following concerning tradition,

Our Roman opponents, while making much of tradition, will never really define tradition or tell you what its content is. Tradition is a word that can be used in a variety of ways. It can refer to a certain school of understanding the Scriptures, such as the Lutheran tradition. It can refer to traditions – [supposedly] from the apostles – that are not in the Bible. It can refer to developing traditions in the history of the church that are clearly not ancient in origin. Usually in the ancient fathers of the church, the word ‘tradition’ refers to the standard interpretation of the Bible among them. And we Protestants value such traditions. [9] [emphasis added]

So, a huge problem for the RCC is that the church fathers used the word ‘tradition’ to refer to their standard interpretation of the Scriptures, something Godfrey points out, that Protestants totally agree with. The ancient church fathers were not referring to some undocumented, oral belief that had been passed down through the ages to them as the RCC claims, and that takes away one of their favorite tools to ‘prove’ their concept of ‘tradition’ - that it is substantiated in history when it is so easy to prove that it does not. (Have you been paying attention to the quotes of church fathers at the end of my blogs?)

What can be shown by citations, debates and official RCC documents, is that when a claim of ‘oral tradition’ is made, those claims cannot be substantiated by a single Roman council, theologian or apologist with any specific doctrines of the church. The RCC will claim that 2 Th 2:15 uses ‘traditions taught by word of mouth’ in a different sense, and describes traditions that should be believed, as opposed to the traditions repudiated by Jesus (Isa 29:13) in the Gospels (Matt 15:2-6; Mark 7:5-13) and by Paul (Col 2:8). But the justification for their view of ‘oral traditions’ remains for the RCC to prove. It has been a repeated request with no real response for the last 500 yrs. And without identifying what traditions Paul was supposedly referring to, we are left with the actual context of 2 Th 2:1-14 (about the second coming of Christ) to define what Paul meant in 2 Th 2:15. Paul was likely also referring to the Gospel he shared with them that brought them to salvation. (I refer the reader to: Sola Scriptura - Part 3 - 2 Th 2:15)

Furthermore, there are 3 problems with the Roman apologists’ argument: [10]

1. They argue for something that cannot be objectively identified. Why? Because there are no known extant, extrabiblical, Pauline traditions. If they actually exist, one would think it would be quite easy to produce them, and Protestants have been waiting for 500 yrs. 
2. If these supposed traditions cannot be produced, then they cannot be identified or defined either. At this point the Catholic Church honestly would have no idea whether they are following the traditions they profess to be arguing for. 
3. The Catholic Church presupposes that Paul’s ‘oral tradition’ somehow differs in substance from what is preserved in his letters, such as Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians. 

These three problems illustrate the point of contention Protestants have with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on tradition – “How can something unidentified and unidentifiable be made binding on the follower of Jesus Christ? The answer is obvious. It cannot be done.” [11]

The Parallels with Gnosticism

As much as I hate to go here, one of the reasons I posted the blog on Gnosticism is because there are parallels between the Catholic Church teachings and Gnosticism. 

It is Irenaeus, once again, because of his vast knowledge of the Gnostic teachings, whose refutation below shows a vivid similarity between the ancient heresy of Gnosticism and the current teachings of Catholicism. Irenaeus wrote, 

Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures… When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce [by living voice, or word of mouth]. [12] [emphasis added]

So, what do we see in the above quote from Irenaeus? First we see that the Gnostics undermined the Scriptures as ambiguous or unclear. The intelligibility of Scripture to show mankind the way to salvation has never been in question. In my previous blog, General and Special Revelation, we saw that Jesus explained the Scriptures to His disciples after His resurrection, as did Paul in the Synagogues, and as did the Apostles in their travels and in their Gospels and Epistles. All of the early church fathers understood this, as did the early Christians. The plain truth is never ‘plain’ for those that want to warp the truth, which is what the Gnostics did with every religion they encountered. The second thing we see that the Gnostics attempted to do (“truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition”) was state that the truths in Scriptures cannot be understood without some additional knowledge, some special ‘gnosis’, that is only supplied by some ‘unwritten tradition’. And third, we are told that the only way we can understand these truths is by their oral teachings, their ‘living voice’, which is meant to undercut the sufficiency of Scripture. The parallel of this with Catholicism is seen in A Catholic Commentary of the Holy Scriptures, when referring to the Protestant principle of the authority of Scripture, it states that Scripture, “[a] dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church …” [13]

It should be noted that this position was adopted by Gnostics in the 2nd century when Scripture was beginning to be read by Christians and quoted in the writings of the early church fathers. And we shouldn’t be surprised by this. Remember in my blog on Gnosticism where I pointed out that the Gnostics always pulled the views of other faiths into their belief system? Why would they not do the same with Christianity? There had to be a way to blunt the clear message of Scripture, so they created a ‘living voice’ of tradition that would help you understand the Scriptures ‘properly’. They were always touting their ‘secret knowledge’ that would unlock ‘truth’. 

And Irenaeus understood this as he dissected their teachings and refuted them in his 5 Volumes of Against Heresies. What might be surprising is that this same language started showing up in the message of the Catholic Church about tradition, which became formally adopted in the 16th century (i.e., the Council of Trent) and continues to be taught to this day. There are numerous examples of Catholic scholars stating that Scripture is ambiguous, but the message of salvation has never been ambiguous. 

A Dominican priest and theologian influential during the Vatican II council, Yves Congar, admits,

To imagine that the Church, at a given point in its history, could hold as of a faith a point which had no statable support in Scripture, would amount to thinking that as article of faith could exist without bearing any relation to the centre of revelation, and thus attributing to the Church and its magisterium a gift to the charism [a special spiritual gift] of revelation, unless we postulate, gratuitously, the existence of an esoteric oral apostolic tradition, for which there exists no evidence whatsoever. It is an express principle of Catholic teaching that the Church can only define what has been revealed; [14] [emphasis added]

Even though Congar would go on to justify the existence of this ‘oral tradition’, he understood the problem the RCC had. You cannot assert the existence of some apostolic ‘oral tradition’ without providing the proof that it exists and that it actually came from the apostles. It becomes a claim without substance. It is a hypothesis of something that is thought to be true, but the absence of evidence when tested shows the exact opposite. Without any evidence in the writings from the early church fathers documenting these traditions, the RCC's claim is ultimately unprovable, since there are no such extrabiblical, oral teachings included in their writings. And we have volumes upon volumes from the early church fathers, and with that much historical evidence at our fingertips one has to ultimately reject the hypothesis that unwritten ‘oral tradition’ exists and that it has successfully been passed down for the last 2000 yrs. If there was any truth to that claim, the Catholic Church would jump at the opportunity to ‘prove’ the Protestant Reformation’s belief in Sola Scriptura to be verifiably false. But they cannot because there is no proof in existence. It’s not hiding in some Vatican vault somewhere, it simply does not exist. 

So, why does this matter? If Christians can just disregard Scripture as a standard for the faith and practice of the Church, and create their own “special revelation” without being required to provide any proof that it is “from God”, then they can invent all sorts of new teachings to suit their latest fad beliefs. All they need is a “living voice” for their “truth” to justify their beliefs, and some creative harmonization with Scripture. Isn’t that what Jim Jones did? David Koresh? Charismatics that believe in ‘modern day apostles’ and Laughing Revivals? Don’t you see it? And it doesn’t stop there as we’ve started to sexualize young children with drag shows and sex changes. It’s all just modern day Gnosticism as it tries to be ‘all things to all people’, to prevent us from ‘standing for something, so we won’t fall for anything’. And we are! So, I say, “No!” to all of it! As Christians, Scripture is our standard, period. We are called to be a different type of people, a moral and Godly people (Mat 5:16; 5:48; 1 Cor 3:17; Php 2:15-16; Col 1:13; 1 Tim 1:9; Tit 2:14; 1 Th 5:4-8; 1 Pet 1:2, 14-17; 2:9, 12; 4:11; Rev 1:6). We do not need some special ‘knowledge’ to understand Scripture, we just need to read Scripture continually, believe it fervently, and practice it faithfully.

Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be avoided. 

Basil of Caesarea (AD 329-379)

Sola Scriptura - means that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. Since they are ‘God-breathed’ (Mat 22:31; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), they are ultimate in authority, for there can be no higher authority than God Himself. All other rules of faith, creeds, councils, or anything else produced by the Church herself, are subject to the ultimate correction of God’s Word. [1]

Church history has repeatedly and clearly proven one thing: once the highest view of Scripture is abandoned by any theologian, group, denomination, or church, the downhill slide in both theology and practice is inevitable. 

James White, Alpha & Omega Ministries

Footnotes

[1] This definition is from James White, Alpha and Omega Ministries.
[2] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 49.
[3] G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology: Vol III, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pgs. 49-50.
[4] James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, (Rockford: Tan, 1980), p. 73, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 51-52.
[5] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, (Boston: St. Paul Edition, 1980) pp. 754-55, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 50.
[6] G. Van Noort, S.T.D, Dogmatic Theology; Vol III, The Source of Revelation, (Westminster: Newman Press, 1961), pp. 5, 8, 9, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 50.
[7] I realize that some may think I’ve gone a little overboard with the Scripture references, but so many seem to think that salvation is not being properly represented in Scripture. They say the same thing about Justification (Rom 3:23; 8:1; 1 Peter 2:24; John 3:36; James 2:23; Rom 8:17; Rom 4:5–8; 2 Cor 5:21; Rom 5:18-19). As you can see, I respectfully disagree.
[8] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 55.
[9] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 56.
[10] Adapted from, David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 56-57.
[11] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 57.
[12] Philip Schaff, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.8.1, 3.2.1. This is from the PDF version of the volume distributed by Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org/
[13] A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) p. 11, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 60.
[14] Yves Congar, O.P., Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London, Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 414, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 60-61.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.