Tertullian on Scripture and Tradition

As we begin part 20 of my Sola Scriptura series, this blog moves onto another early church father by the name of Tertullian, although some current and past historians may not consider him one since he was never a ‘bishop.’ Regardless, Tertullian has made a huge impact upon church history with his numerous writings which provide a view of the early church in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries. Since, he was an extremely important writer in the early church, he has been described this way,

Tertullian was the first Christian writer to write in Latin, and was described three centuries later as writing 'first, and best, and incomparably', of all the writers to do so. … His writing is aggressive, sarcastic and brilliant, and at points very funny even after 2000 years. He was deeply conscious of his own failings, and had a burning desire for truth and integrity. He was described by Jerome as celebrated in all the churches as a speaker, and his works bear the marks of the need to keep an audience awake! [1]

Although it’s tempting to find examples of his humor and sarcasm to post in this blog, we are going to focus on our main topics: what he thought about Scripture and what he meant by tradition. In doing so, we will also take a look at a couple of ‘proofs’ that modern day Catholics try to pas off as examples of references to ‘oral tradition’ and refute those.

Who Was He

Tertullian (160-240 AD) was born in the North African city of Carthage (which is in modern day Tunisia) in 160 AD. He was not raised in the church as he grew up in a pagan home, possibly the son of a Roman centurion. He was a well educated man and practiced law in Carthage. He became a Christian around 193 AD and became a very prolific writer after his conversion. Jerome stated that he was an ordained priest, but this is disputed, as he was likely just a lay leader. He is called the “Father of Latin Christianity” because he was the first to write solely in Latin. The Tertullian Project wrote this about him,

If he ever came to speak at your church you would probably never forget him. He was passionate, articulate, totally committed. He boldly taunted the might of the Roman empire, courageously defended oppressed believers, and harshly reprimanded compromising Christians. In later life, he lost favor with much of the Church when he at least temporarily took up with the Montanists – what we would probably call today a puritanical-charismatic sect. He was the pacesetter as the church expanded its teaching and influence into the Latin speaking world, breaking new and fertile ground in theological understanding. For example, he coined the word Trinity, a word that does not appear anywhere in the Bible, to help us to understand the New Testament teaching about what God is like. He was one of the most fascinating leaders in all church history. [2]

As the above quote points out, Tertullian became a Montanist some time before 210 AD, which then begs the question, “What is a Montanist?” Without getting sidetracked with Montanism, it can be summarized as follows,

The emphases of the New Prophecy seem to have been on resisting persecution, fasting, and avoiding remarriage, together with hostility to any compromise with sin. Few of these points were controversial when judged against the [asceticism] of the next century. Tertullian tells us … that the Spirit proclaimed no innovation in doctrine, but only gave directions about matters of church discipline, which were coming to be the prerogative of the bishop. It would seem that the Montanists were orthodox in all matters of doctrine. (The Montanists)

So, like the Tertullian Project quote above, I would then judge Montanists no differently than many (but not all) modern day Charismatics. Although I used to accept these beliefs many years ago, I now have serious issues with their teachings on the ‘gifts of the spirit’ as taught by those groups today. But, many (not all) Charismatic groups have very orthodox doctrinal beliefs, much more orthodox than many non-Charismatic denominations, like United Churches of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Methodist Churches and others. I know this comparison is, admittedly, a pretty low bar, but many of the Charismatics I knew (and still know) had better theology than most of the SBC Baptists I’ve met. So, this would be comparable to the Montanists of the 2nd and early 3rd century church. Unless you consider all Charismatics to be heretics and therefore unbelievers, Montanism should not be considered heretical, even if some of its beliefs were highly questionable. [3]

I made this slight detour because some in church history consider anyone in Montanism heretics, and the tendency might be to disregard anything Tertullian wrote concerning his defense of orthodox doctrines within the Chirstian faith. I nearly did that myself, almost opting to ignore him in this study. But the Montanism in North Africa was different from that of Asia minor, where it began. Tertullian was drawn by its strict moral code, a more puritanical form of faith, rather than focusing on prophetic messages. Therefore, his participation might actually be considered a reaction against some of the liberalism that he felt was already creeping into the early church.

His View of Scripture

According to J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997), Terullian’s view of Scripture was very similar to Irenaeus, he had an extremely high regard for it. He wrote,

Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’s in any important respect. He was an innovator, it is true, in extending the meaning of tradition to cover what had been customary in the Church for long generations. In this sense practices like the triple renunciation and triple immersion at baptism, the reception of the eucharist in the early church, the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and at Eastertide, and the sign of the cross could be described as traditions; one tradition might even be said to be at variance with another. In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in Scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it. [emphasis added] [4]

According to Kelly’s historical research and opinion, Tertullian understood that the oral teachings of the Apostles had already been recorded in the gospels and their epistles. And we can see his view of Scripture and its importance in his writings. Here are a few quotes that demonstrate this high regard.

But, that we might attain an ampler and more authoritative knowledge at once of Himself, and of His counsels and will, God has added a written revelation for the behoof [benefit or advantage] of every one whose heart is set on seeking Him, that seeking he may find, and finding believe, and believing obey. [emphasis added] (The Apology, Ch 18)

I revere the fulness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. [emphasis added] (Against Hermogenes, Ch 22)

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. [emphasis added] (Against Praexes, Ch 11)

What sort of truth is that which they patronize, when they commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do. From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith? [emphasis added] (The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch 14)

As we see from the above quotes, Tertullian made the Scriptures the supreme authority that every belief and every teaching needed to be measured against. And, there are more quotes that could be supplied to show how Tertullian viewed Scripture, but I think these demonstrate the point being made. He demanded that people and heretical groups that he wrote against must refute him with Scripture.

J.N.D. Kelly is not the only scholar to vouch for Tertullian’s view of the absolute authority of Scripture. Roger Pearse of the Tertullian Project summarizes his view this way,

When we look at Tertullian's works, we do not find any systematic position adopted, other than that based on the Bible. The position of Tertullian is that something is true if Christ taught it, the apostles passed it on, and therefore it is found in the Scriptures - and the indefinite boundary of the latter is balanced by the authority of the churches founded by those apostles. [emphasis added] (Tertullian's Theology)

Commenting on Tertullian’s view of the authority of Scripture, scholar Ellen Flesseman-van Leer wrote,

Because scripture contains the revelation and is part of tradition, it has of course absolute authority … And therefore, if a doctrine or precept is written in the Bible, it cannot but be true, and if a dogma needs to be proved true, it is entirely sufficient to show that it is written. And even more important, scripture is not only sufficient evidence, but strictly necessary for proving the truth of a dogma. [emphasis added] [5]

And finally, William Webster wrote,

For Tertullian there is no other source of doctrine but Scripture, which he described as the records of the faith. Consequently, he emphatically stated that it is not possible to know truth apart from Scripture because it reveals the entirety of God’s special revelation. It is materially sufficient and if Scripture is silent on an issue it is illegitimate to raise theological speculation to the status of revelation. [emphasis added] [6]

So, as we can see, for Tertullian, the ‘records of faith’ were the Scriptures. All throughout his apologetic defenses of the Christian faith, Tertullian made it clear that God’s revelation of truth was completely contained within the pages of Scripture. So anything not found in Scripture, such as the modern day understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about tradition was, in his view, theological speculation, and nothing that is considered speculation can be on the same level of authority as Scripture.

Remember that in Tertullian’s writings he was refuting Gnostic beliefs that were attempting to synthesize a mixture of their fanciful but heretical ‘secret knowledge’ with Christian beliefs, and Tertullian pointed them to Scripture as the only source from which their doctrinal proofs must come, because all true doctrines must come from Scripture. Not tradition, Scripture.

Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. [emphasis added] (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 3)

This is yet another example of Tertullian’s high view of Scripture, demanding that all must prove their doctrines are from the pages of Scriptures. Any other source was illegitimate.

Here is another example of his demand that doctrines must be found in Scripture:

Of course nothing is ‘too hard for the Lord.’ But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it. [emphasis added] (Against Praexes 10)

And here are a couple of examples already presented above, but this time see the emphasis on finding the doctrines of God in Scripture,

I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. [emphasis added] (Against Hermogenes 22)

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself … [emphasis added] (Against Praexes 11)

So, much like Irenaeus, Tertullian wrote about the importance of Scripture and used it as his primary defenses of the truthfulness of Christianity over the Gnostic heresies of his day.

His View of Tradition

So now that we’ve seen what Tertullian thought about Scripture, let’s turn to his view of tradition. Since Tertullian used the word ‘tradition’ in his writings, we will need to understand what he meant when he used that word.

According to William Webster,

Tertullian taught that tradition was the original apostolic preaching of the faith, which he called the tradition of the faith or the rule of faith. It was fully contained in Scripture, and was passed down to the Church in completeness by the apostles. [7]

So, what was it that the Apostles preached when these Churches were started? It was the gospel of Jesus Christ, which Tertullian called the ‘rule of faith.’ For Tertullian, ‘tradition’ was the apostolic preaching of the gospel, which he referred to as the ‘rule of faith’, or the ‘tradition of faith.’

… they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. [emphasis added] (Prescription Against Heretics)

It is important to understand the obvious here, the doctrine preached by the Apostles was the same gospel message that was preached by subsequent generations of believers to create and establish other churches. Everyone agrees that the gospel was originally delivered orally by the Apostles. The Apostles were repeating the revelation they received from Jesus, since they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit to preach God’s words to everyone they encountered. No one is seriously suggesting otherwise. So, is anyone suggesting the ‘tradition of the faith’ mentioned by Tertullian in his day was something other than what was inscripturated by the Apostles in the New Testament before their deaths? Because if they are, then they are suggesting that some of the Holy Spirit inspired Apostolic revelation was lost somewhere along the way, a revelation that was required to complete the work of salvation which turns the heart of lost souls to Christ as Lord and Savior. And if you are saying that these inspired teachings were preserved only as oral teachings, then what was the deciding factor for why some were preserved one way, and others another way? In other words, why were some oral teachings preserved as Scripture and others not? Why were some apostolic teachings not important enough to inscripturate? Or, one could ask this question, why were some apostolic teachings not important enough to preserve as oral only ‘tradition’? Anyone? Furthermore, why are we not allowed to know what these oral traditions actually were? We can know what the inscripturated teachings were because we have Bibles, but not what the supposed preserved oral teachings were? What would be the reason for that?

But we know what the rule of faith was, because Tertullian told us what it was,

The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immoveable and irreformable; the rule, to wit, of believing in one only God omnipotent, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised again the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at the right (hand) of the Father, destined to come to judge quick and dead through the resurrection of the flesh as well (as of the spirit). [emphasis added] (The Veiling of Virgins, 1)

Tertullian starts off telling the reader that this ‘tradition’, this ‘rule of faith’ is the doctrinal content of the Gospel which is known, fixed, and complete. He then proceeds to tell the reader what that rule of faith was, the confessions of the faith we find in Scripture.

We find the exact same thing in The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch 13. So, as you can see, for Tertullian, the ‘rule of faith’ is exactly the same as the ‘tradition of the faith’. They were not independent of Scripture, they were the very content of Scripture. As Webster noted,

It consists of the primary doctrines that make up the creed pertaining to the three persons of the Trinity and the judgment to come. It is obvious from the listing of these doctrines that they are all taught in Scripture. Tertullian taught that the apostles received the fullness of the revelation from Christ and passed on that revelation in its entirety in their preaching and epistles. [emphasis added] [8]

So, for Tertullian we see that,

Tertullian taught that the tradition of the apostles was committed by them to the Church in the Scriptures as a will and testament. The apostolic tradition was summed up in the rule of faith, which was grounded in the truth of Scripture and preached orally in the Church, but was not doctrinal content oral in nature, that is, there were no doctrines included that were not explicitly taught in Scripture. It was derived from Scripture and embodied the fundamentals of the faith. [emphasis added] [9]

But Tertullian did speak of ‘traditions’ in a novel way. He was the first church father to cite customs and practices that had a long history of use in the church. So, what were some of these ‘traditions’? When you take a look at The Chaplet, or De Corona, Ch 3, you will see the following ‘traditions’,

• Renouncing sin 3 times
• Being immersed 3 times during baptism
• Receiving the eucharist in the morning
• Prohibiting kneeling on Sundays and Easter.

Are these examples of ‘traditions’ that are co-equal in authority with Scripture? Simply put, NO! But they do have more historical evidence as ‘traditions’ that papal infallibility or the perpetual virginity of Mary. Catholicism no longer practices immersion for water baptism, nor the renouncing of sin 3 times when a baby cannot renounce their sin. So, these do not pass the test of being a tradition, as they are not currently practiced in the Catholic Church. And even if they were, they would still not be considered doctrinal. They would simply be ‘customs and practices within the Church’. They would not and could not be elevated to the status of doctrinal teachings. God cares about the heart, the inward change of mankind, not the outward practices. Is this not stated over and over again in the Old Testament? (Eze 11:19; Eze 36:26-27; Deut 30:6; Jer 24:7)

These ‘traditions’ are much like Irenaeus’ only identification of a ‘tradition’ in his writings, as he stated that it was ‘tradition’ that Jesus had died in his 50’s. No one today considers this a ‘tradition,’ let alone factually true.

These are customs and practices that one can say were considered traditions in the Church of the day, but they were not doctrines co-equal with Scripture; they did not carry the same authority that Scripture carried and still carries today.

What Catholic Apologists Say

Catholic apologists, of course, dispute this, and state that like Irenaeus, Tertullian was referring to ‘tradition’ as would be understood as unwritten teachings which were authoritative and not contained in Scripture. One such example is in Not By Scripture Alone, in Joe Gallegos’ section of the book, where he makes this statement,

On occasion, both Irenaeus and Tertullian specifically referred to Tradition as something distinct from Scripture. Tradition was applied in a narrow sense meaning those teachings (through coincident with the Scriptures) that have come down to us through unwritten means. This is especially true when a controversy arose about the interpretation of Scripture. [10]

Gallegos seems to be implying that Tertullian understood ‘tradition’ in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church does today. But is that really true? Well, let’s find out.

He first quotes Irenaeus in Against Heresies, III.4.1,

For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

But we’ve already discussed this passage in my previous blog, where I showed that Irenaeus understood this ‘tradition’ as the teachings of the Apostles which were handed down to the churches and that the doctrinal content of those same teachings had been entrusted to the churches via the Scriptures they were recorded in. So, even though Gallegos did not make his case for ‘tradition’ with Irenaeus, his goal seems to have been to use Irenaeus and Tertullian together to strengthen his weak examples that Tertullian was referencing a modern-day type of ‘tradition’.

To do that, Gallegos cites the following from Tertullian,

If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. [emphasis added] (The Chaplet, or De Corona, Ch 4) [11]

Nothing about this is compelling evidence of tradition because all we have to do is look at the previous chapter of Tertullian’s work. See for yourself.

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. [emphasis added] (The Chaplet, or De Corona, Ch 3)

As you can see, Gallegos omitted the fact that chapter 4 is referring to the customs and practices described in chapter 3. And what we see in chapter 3 completely destroys his attempt to make Tertullian refer to modern day orally transmitted doctrines, or ‘oral tradition’. As can clearly be seen in the above quote, Tertullian was saying that common practices and customs of his day were ‘traditions’ but were not found in Scripture. And even worse for Gallegos and Sungenis is that none of the practices and customs that Tertullian recorded, and I reproduced above, are accepted or practiced today in the Catholic Church. And none of these customs or practices are even remotely elevated to the status of a doctrine. Is that not what ‘tradition’ in the Catholic Church is? Are they not doctrinal content which was never written down but are still taught and believed today as co-equal in authority to Scripture? So now that we have the context for what Tertullian said in chapter 4, we see how what Gallegos said was a complete misrepresentation of what Tertullian wrote.

And we have, yet again, another unforced error by attempting to use Tertullian as an example of referring to unwritten, orally transmitted doctrines passed down by the Apostles to today as what Catholics would call ‘oral tradition’.

We then have another example touted by Gallegos in the same chapter that is supposedly Tertullian declaring that the Church ‘alone’ was entrusted as the custodian and interpreter of the apostolic faith. Really? Custodian, yes, but interpreter? I challenge you to find that in the Tertullian quote he provided in his book and I’ve reproduced below.

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, ‘as many as walk according to the rule,’ which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostle from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, ‘Who are you?’ [emphasis added] (On Prescription against the Heretics, 37) [12]

And you say, “See, it’s right there! ‘the rule, which the church has handed down from the apostles’, right?” The quoted passage is about the heretics that cannot appeal to Scripture because what their teaching has nothing to do with what is found in the Scriptures, therefore it's devoid of truth. Besides, haven’t we already read where J.N.D. Kelly’s research documented that for Tertullian, it was the Scriptures which had been delivered to the church to guard and pass down? Tertullian thought so, since this is what he wrote,

Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. [emphasis added] (Prescription against the Heretics, 21)

And don’t we see the emphasis on Scripture in the passage quoted by Gallegos? If this is about tradition, why isn’t it mentioned? Nor do I see anything about the Church being the ‘interpreter of the Apostolic faith’ as Gallegos stated. I would also contend that since the Catholic Church does not have a single volume of authoritative Scriptural interpretations – i.e., infallible commentaries – this was never understood as a function of the Church. There are a lot of commentaries written throughout the ages from men like Athenauis, Chrysostom, Augustine, and many others, but not a single one was ever elevated by the Church to the status of an “authoritative interpretation” of Scripture. Not a single book of the Bible has ever had an authoritative interpretation created, approved or sanctioned by the Catholic Church, and not even a single chapter of any book of the Bible! As a matter of fact, there are only a handful of verses that have ever been authoritatively interpreted, and even the verses on that list are disputed. Was 2000 yrs not enough time?

Conclusion

We started off this blog with a quick historical look at who Tertullian was so that some context could be established for an examination of his view of Scripture. And once again, as we have seen time and time again with these early Church fathers, Tertullian had a very high view of Scripture. We looked at what some experts had to say about his view and I provided a number of quotes to support their conclusions. We then looked at his view of what tradition was. And like Irenaeus, Tertullian saw what he called the ‘rule of faith’ or the ‘tradition of faith’ as the teachings of the Apostles, consisting of the content found in Scripture. In addition, he never made an appeal in his writings to ‘tradition’ as an independent and coequal source of truth alongside the Scriptures, but demanded that his opponents prove their beliefs from Scripture. And we finished with a look at what a Catholic apologist said was ‘proof’ of Tertullian’s belief in a modern day view of ‘tradition’ as a body of doctrinal truths handed down from the Apostles. But upon examination of their case, found it to be missing any semblance of factual support. Simply put, there was absolutely no proof presented for their case. There was, however, proof, which I supplied, that the ‘traditions’ Tertullian spoke of were simply customs and practices.

Just like Irenaeus, Tertullian provides a window into the 2nd century Christian church, a 2nd window with the same conclusion. As much as some may want to utilize Tertullian as an example of a church father that promoted the type of ‘tradition’ envisioned by the Catholic church today, an unwritten body of orally transmitted doctrines from the Apostles that can be touted as equal to the Scriptures, it just is not there. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian may have used the word, but it was devoid of that desired meaning. And worse, there is no possible way to construe the term as meaning anything other than the customs and practices of Tertullian’s day.

And that creates a gigantic problem for the Catholic Church. We now have two very important Church fathers that made no mention of ‘tradition’ as the Catholic Church would like it to be defined. Catholic apologists like to say that all of church history supports their concept of tradition. Well, we now have two very important examples that defy that statement. If this concept existed during Tertullian’s day, this type of ‘tradition’ does not seem to have been talked about or referred to in any of his written works. And what’s more, no later church fathers referred to the Catholic concept of ‘apostolic tradition’ in any of the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian.

Footnotes

1. The 'Noddy' guide to Tertullian, from The Tertullian Project.
2. Tertullian: Colorful, Controversial Early African Christian, from The Tertullian Project.
3. For more information, see: Why were the Montanists condemned?. There are heretical beliefs and teachings in some Charismatic churches and movements, but believing in modern day revelation is not necessarily one of them. That specific belief, however, would put them at odds with this study, since Charismatics would have no way to refute the ‘oral tradition’ of Catholicism.
4. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody MA: Prince Press, 1960), p. 39.
5. Ellen Flesseman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: VanGorcum, 1953), p. 172, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 37.
6. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 37.
7. Ibid, p. 39.
8. Ibid, p. 40.
9. Ibid, p. 40.
10. Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone, ed. (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), p. 375, online PDF version from academia.edu.
11. Ibid, p. 375. I have Provided the quote from a different source, as my early copy of Not By Scripture Alone has a slight quotation error, likely due to being an early version of the book.
12. Ibid, p. 376.

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 and William Webster, 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.