Introduction

One of the rallying cries of the reformation, the idea of sola scriptura, is simply this - for matters of doctrine, faith, and morality, the written word of God is the ultimate authority. This is not to say that truth cannot be found outside the Bible of course (for that would violate its own teaching - see Psalm 19:1; Romans 2:12-15), but rather it is that the Bible alone is our final court of appeal. Teachings about Scripture may well enlighten us, but they may never replace or contradict what has been written in God's Word.

What happens when we move away from this principle? Usually heretical false teaching. It is simply applied logic - if the Bible is the sure word of God, then all it teaches is true; therefore to teach that which is false would require that additions or subtractions be made to it. If no additions or subtractions are made, it is much more difficult to introduce heretical teachings. It is easy to see this practiced in the cults. Mormons, for example, have to add no less than 3 complete volumes of "scripture" to the Bible, not to mention a continuous prophetic office that can usurp all preceding authority when it is necessary to do so. The Jehovah's Witnesses are told quite plainly that if they study the Bible alone without consulting the Watchtower commentaries they wil be lead astray. But God has made it perfectly clear that we are not to add to, or subtract from, His word. It is clearly a very dangerous practice to indulge (see Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18-19 ).

Roman Catholic Arguments

Scripture + Tradition = Truth?

Where the Roman Catholic Church diverts from this clear path is in their belief in the necessity of a teaching magesterium. Roman Catholicism believes that the Bible may not be properly understood without the church's infallible interpretation for the masses. This of course could allow them to introduce false teachings to what Scripture actually affirms. Much like the cults, the church auhorities are the final authority on matters of faith and practice, not the word of God. They argue that:

• The Bible does not teach sola scriptura, it is therefore a self contradictory idea.
• The Bible teaches that traditions are to be followed (2 Thess 2:15).
• The Bible prefers oral to written communication (!) (3 John 13).
• The Bible (which is infallible) cannot be understood without traditional teaching (which is infallible).
• Because it is the church that created the Bible (canon), the church cannot be less than Scripture.
• The early church had no New Testament, only the church to teach them.
• Private interpretation leads only to division and denominationalism.

Scripture = Truth

Answering Roman Catholic Arguments

• The Bible does not teach sola scriptura:  This idea is not formalized in a Biblical passage, but is easily discernible in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 3:15-16). We accept many teachings that are not formally stated in a "proof text" such as the Trinity. We know from absolute principles that it is true, although it requires more than one Scripture reference to prove it.
  
  
• The Bible cannot be understood without traditional teachings:  This is not to be found in Scripture any more than sola scriptura is. Nowhere in the Bible is tradition considered "God breathed", as Scripture is always affirmed to be. In fact, it was the traditions of the religious leaders that Jesus most strongly spoke out against (Matt. 15:3-6, 22:29). If tradition were necessary to understand Scripture, then what the apostles did not write down might be seens as being more clear than what they did write down.
  
  
• The Bible teaches that traditions are to be followed:  The Bible teaches that the words and written teachings of the apostles are to be followed (John 14:26, 16:13), but today these are found only in Scripture. No man's words are infallible (Galatians 2:1-2, 17), Scripture alone is said to be from God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And if there exists this supposed "oral tradition", why has not the Roman Catholic Church codified those teachings? If these traditions exist, we should be able to list them. Where are they written down? How do we know what they are? How do we know if someone changes them?
  
  
• The Bible prefers oral to written communication:  God has always had written down what He wanted to communicate, and He did not leave anything out (see Exod. 24:4; Deut. 28:69, 31:26; Josh. 24:25-26; 1 Sam. 10:25; Isa. 8:1, 30:8). Christ Himself, a human authority if ever there was one, appealed to Scripture when tempted by Satan. In Berea, Paul himself was checked against Scripture to make sure that what he was teaching was true. In 3 John 13 (a short, personal note to the elder of a church) it is obvious that John would rather be with Gaius than to be writing to him, that is the point - not that his written word is not as good as his spoken word. And, even if John did mean that his spoken word was a better word, it was the word of an apostle, not an interpreter 2,000 years removed from the scene. The Bible repeatedly warns against going beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6; Proverbs 30:54-6).
  
  
• The church that created the Bible cannot be less than the Bible:  The church did not create the canon, so this argument is moot. While tradition was part of the criteria for acceptance, it certainly was not the only one. The true test for inclusion in the Biblical canon is not mere usage or support by the early church. More important is the authority the book possesses. In Scripture we find prophets of God whose message is ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh. 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16)
  
  
• The early church had no New Testament, only the church to teach them:  The early church had the testimony of both the Old Testament Scriptures, and the teachings / writings of the apostles (which were checked against O.T. Scripture). The New Testament is the only collection of those teachings / writings.
  
  
• Private interpretation leads only to division and denominationalism:  The Bible's clarity is not equal across the board, and it does leave room for interpretation on secondary issues. This is not true, however, for the overall message and major doctrinal teachings. Further, there are plenty of deviations within Roman Catholicism - liberalism and ecumenism have infected the Roman Catholic church just they have Protestant churches. The fact that they do not label their factions as different denominations does not mean that they do not exist. If there are contradictory traditions within the Roman Catholic Church, then who is to say which one is infallible?

Conclusion

Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Many Roman Catholic traditions have been accepted without the "unanimous agreement of the Fathers", so this argument holds no water either. Many of the most divisive areas in Roman Catholic belief are of late origin, often proclaimed only to form a dividing line between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. How can a "tradition" that  was not practiced for 1500 years suddenly become an infallible position in the church? Oral traditions are unreliable. They are not able to be tested against each other, they cannot be proven from history, they can easily become distorted as they are passed along. Common sense should tell us that a thing written is more reliable than a thing spoken.