2] My opponent affirms several things that I would commend for his honesty; 1) There is not one
verse in the bible that says scripture is the sole authority (par. 1); 2) the Word of God had
authority and came in two forms, oral and written (par. 13); 3) The authority that the apostles had
came from our Lord Jesus Christ and had God's authority behind them (par. 4-14). This
authoritative church was binding on all those who followed Christ. During this time of apostolic
authority, their judgment was absolute (Mt. 18:18-19; Acts 11; Acts 15). There were no private
interpreters of the apostles. Their judgment had authority from God and were united in doctrine.
When disputes arose, an authoritative apostolic church would decide the matter. These admissions
undercut the case for Sola Scriptura. Besides examining his arguments that apostolic authority
died when the apostles did, I will examine the ramification of these crucial admissions.
3] My opponent argues that the authority of the apostles could not be passed on (except by the
bible, par. 9-11). In my opening statement I showed that not to be the case. 2nd Timothy
established two things fatal to this idea: 1) Succession to the apostles with the authority of the
apostles; 2) what is to be protected is the word of God in oral form; i.e. tradition. We saw Paul
ordain Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6) to the ministry: "Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that
is within you through the laying on of my hands". This ministry is transacted in an official
ceremony (cf. 1 Tim. 4:14; 1:18) My opponent alleges that after Paul and the other apostles die,
there is no binding authority other than scripture. Paul is at the end of his life (2 Tim. 4:6-8);. If
this were so I would expect Paul to write "make sure you make copies of what I and the others
have written, and that be your only guide after I die. After we die, the only authoritative teaching
is scripture. One must read and decide for themselves, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide them. "
We see no statement in the New Testament that after the apostles die, so did their authority. On
the contrary, we see Paul entrust to Timothy the function of guarding the deposit of faith; Is the
deposit of faith limited to scripture? Let us examine Paul's words: 2 Tim. 1:13-14: "Follow the
pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in
Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within
us." Notice that Timothy must go by the words that he heard from Paul: oral tradition. This oral
tradition is guarded by the Holy Spirit, exactly as the church teaches.
4] Next, we saw Timothy as Paul's spiritual son, have the same authority to pass on this oral
tradition, guarded by the Holy Spirit: 2 Tim. 2:1-2 "You then, my son (2nd generation), be strong
in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me (1st generation) before
many witnesses entrust to faithful men (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others (4th
generation) also." No hint that succeeding generations do not pass on the Holy Spirit or teach
authoritatively. Paul assumes that the Holy Spirit that Timothy uses to guard from error, is
promised to the succeeding generations. This is orally transmitted as well.
5] Timothy is Paul's true son in the faith , and is addressed as so -1 Tim. 1:2: "To Timothy, my
true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord"
also 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim 1:2, 2:1; Phi. 2:23). The sons are true successors. They are appointed to
preach the gospel message with authority. Timothy: 1 Cor. 4:17: "Therefore I sent to you
Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach
them everywhere in every church." Titus: Tit. 1:4-5: "To Titus, my true son in a common faith:
Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. This is why I left you in Crete,
that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,".
Notice in the Corinthians passage that just as Paul teaches, so does his successor Timothy. Let us
digest this point. How was this faith to be passed on? According to my opponent, those who
succeed the apostles do not have binding authority, and the sole rule of faith is the bible. On the
contrary, Timothy and Titus have the same apostolic authority to bind and loose as the apostles
(Mt. 18:18, 16:19). As bishops ordained by Paul, they also have the authority to appoint elders
(or priests) transmitting this oral tradition and sacraments given by Christ. No mention here that
these successors have less authority or scripture being the exclusive guide.
6] My opponent writes that the Holy Spirit was not promised to the church (par. 11). How could
the church be the pillar and ground of truth if it did not have the Holy Spirit (1 Tim. 3:15)? This
passage is not qualified by, "it is only so if it teaches scripture" , or "it is only the pillar as long as
the apostles are alive." He promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide into all truth (John
16:13), and evil will not (future) prevail against the church (Mt. 16:18). He will be with his people
until the end of the age (future) (Mt. 28:20), thus through the Holy Spirit. My opponent stressed
that one could have binding authority only if he had the Holy Spirit. I have demonstrated that
those who succeeded the apostles had such binding authority. Paul, in writing to those who were
under successors of the apostles (they were not under apostles) wrote: "Obey your leaders and
submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give
account. (Heb. 13: 17):" Authority via the Holy Spirit.
7] My opponent made a big admission when he stated that oral tradition at he time of the apostles
was actually the Word of God (par. 14), and was to be received as such by the Thessalonians.
There of course is no real choice as Paul is explicit in affirming this in 2 Thes. 2:15. Let us
examine the context, 2 Thes. 2:13-17: . "13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for
you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved,
through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our
gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm
and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 16
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal
comfort and good hope through grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish them in every good
work and word." Prior to this (vv. 1-12) Paul writes how people must not be deceived by false
teaching. Paul tells the Thessalonians that in order to not be deceived, they must hold to both
traditions, oral and written. Nowhere does he say that what is oral, is the exact thing as the
written. Nor does he tell us that after he dies, the only thing that must be held to is the written
word. What does this tradition (oral and written) do? Tradition teaches the gospel (v. 14) that
leads to salvation (v. 13). When one holds to these traditions our Lord Jesus Christ establishes
them in every good work (v. 17). These are the same things Paul writes of in regards to scripture
in 2 Tim. 3:15-17. My opponent stressed that the traditions of 2 Thess. 2 were only to be received
by the Thessalonians and not for future generations. . Paul specifically uses the word tradition,
which means to pass on. We have seen in 2 Tim. 1-2, that this oral tradition is indeed to be passed
on to future generations. If we hold that 2 Thes. 2 only refers to traditions held by the
Thessalonians he is writing to, he digs himself into a deeper problem. Paul here puts oral and
written tradition in the same category. If we are to believe oral tradition is stopped here, then so is
written tradition. That is fatal to Sola Scriptura. If he admits that the written tradition must be
passed on, so oral tradition must be passed on as well. That is also fatal to the Sola Scriptura
theory. Any way 2 Thess. 2:15 is consistently interpreted, Sola Scriptura falls.
8] My opponents admission that all of what the apostles taught was the Word of God (par. 13-14)
destroys Sola Scriptura. Nine of the 12 apostles (all except John, Peter, and Matthew) thus orally
taught the Word of God and never wrote a thing. What happened to all these churches established
by the nine apostles when the apostles were martyred? According to my opponent, once the
apostles died, there was no binding authority except scripture. Were all these churches supposed
to forget what they were orally taught? Were they now precluded from passing on this oral
tradition? How could the written tradition be binding on them when they had none? Especially
since there was no full canon until the 4th century. Of course, the Word of God does not last until
the apostles died, but this Oral Word of God lasts forever (1 Peter 1:25). This oral ord of God
was binding on all the churches established by all the apostles and their successors.
9] Let us examine the verses that were put forward that only the written tradition was binding
(par. 15-19). Twice he quoted Eph. 3:2-5: "...How that by revelation He made known to me the
mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of
men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets." 1) This is a
letter written to the Ephesians prior to the scriptural letter to the Ephesians. Thus, the quotation is
not even about scripture; 2) Paul writes of what they had already received before, he had briefly
written, thus implying that he told orally much more than what he wrote. In fact, Paul had
preached the Word of God for three years (Acts 20: 27, 31). After Paul died, were the Ephesians
all of a sudden supposed to forget what Paul told them?; 3) The mystery (as explained in v. 6) is
not about all doctrine that must be believed but only that the Gentiles can become a part of
Christ's body; 4) This letter does not say that it is referencing all the manifold wisdom of God.
What does? Let us examine a few verses later: Eph. 3:10 reads: "that through the church the
manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the
heavenly places." So the authoritative church teaches this wisdom, thus destroying Sola Scriptura;
5) If we read further on, we see the authority of the Church to unite in truth: Eph. 4: 3-5, 12-14
"..eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit,
just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one
baptism: to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until
we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature
manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be
children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men,
by their craftiness in deceitful wiles." Notice, unity, one faith, brought by the Holy Spirit (not
28,000 faiths spawned by Sola Scriptura which does carry about every wind of doctrine).
10] Twice my opponent referenced 1 Cor. 14:37 (par. 15 & 18) as showing that only scripture
commands believers, not oral tradition. Quite the contrary, we see several references to Timothy,
Paul's spiritual son, having the authority to command based on what Paul taught orally. 1 Tim.1:3
"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain
persons not to teach any different doctrine." (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17, 1 Thes. 4:1-2). As we have already
seen (2Tim. 1:13-2:2), the succeeding generations pass on this oral Word of God with the same
authority. Paul, acting as bishop reminds Timothy, also a bishop, that he likewise has the authority
to command others: 2 Tim. 2:14-15: "Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to
avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to
present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly
handling the word of truth." Sola Scriptura people allege here we have authority of all people to
rightly understand God's word. I have shown that this word is oral. Paul tells Timothy to charge
the people, and as bishop, Timothy has the authority to rightly handle the word of truth (oral
tradition), and so instruct the believers. Absolutely no hint of private interpretation.
11] John 20:31 - My opponent quoted John 20:31, about how his gospel is written so that we
may believe, and supposedly it proves Sola Scriptura. First, he forgets to mention v. 30 which
makes it plain that he is only mentioning John's gospel. Is my opponent arguing that we only need
John's gospel? Also, as James Akins writes, "the verse from John's Gospel tells us only that the
Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible
is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology, nor does it say
the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New
Testament to appeal to; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction."
12] My opponent quotes 2 Tim. 3:15-17 to show scripture is sufficient for salvation and equips
for every good work: 1) What equips Timothy for salvation and good work? The scripture that
Timothy knew since infancy was only the Old Testament. Paul does not even identify this very
letter as scripture. 2) The immediate context shows a reliance on what he was orally taught as
being a part of what equips him (v. 10, 14); 3). Paul does not tell him to forget the first two
chapters of the letter which we have shown to be oral teaching; 4) Scripture is only termed
profitable (v. 16), and has its uses. It is quite a leap to say one needs nothing else. Water is
profitable for one's health, one also needs food; 5) 2 Thes. 2:13-17 we saw standing fast to oral
tradition as also helpful to salvation; 6) For equipping for every good work we saw oral tradition
do as well (2 Thes. 2:13-17). James says patience makes a man equipped for every good work
(James 1:4). Other things that prepare for every good work and perfect the person: 2 Tim. 2:21;
Col. 1:28; 4:12. Scripture is thus not the only thing that does this function; 7) All Scripture only
refers either to a specific verse or a specific book. The New Testament use of the term "scripture"
reveals that whenever the term is used in the singular -- "scripture" -- it always refers to either a
specific book of Scripture or a specific passage within a book. It never refers to the whole corpus
of works we today refer to as "Scripture." When the Bible wants to refer to the whole of the
corpus, it always uses the term in the plural -- "the Scriptures," never "Scripture."
13] 1 Cor. 4:6 - My opponent alleged (par. 18) that when Paul writes to not go beyond what is
written he means not to go beyond scripture. Paul is writing about the book of life, about who
will get acquitted or condemned (vv. 4-5). There is no reference to scripture anywhere in the
passage. He writes that Rev. 20:12 means that only scripture is the standard that we will be
judged (par 19). Let us look at the context to see if that is so: Rev. 20:12-15: "And I saw the
dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was
opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by
what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in
them, and all were judged by what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the
lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." The book of Life is not scripture, but the
list of those who go to heaven. That written in the books is not scripture, but what the people had
done. These verses thus have no relation to scripture, let alone having anything to do with Sola
Scriptura. Concluding 'proof' texts for Sola Scriptura (Rom. 2:16; Jam. 2:12; John 12:48) are
likewise not even references about scripture. Finally, the charge (par. 19) that the church
discredits scripture should not be stated by any theory that produces 28,000 versions of truth.
14] This is not a debate about tradition (par. 14). It is whether scripture is the sole authority. If
my opponent would in the future like to debate what the early Church Fathers taught on such
things as the idea that after the apostles died, no one could pass the Holy Spirit, the sacrifice and
real presence of the Eucharist, papal authority, baptism, the rule of faith, worship, etc. maybe that
can be done sometime in the future. The early Church was distinctively Catholic. Protestantism is
forced to put out this idea of Sola Scriptura because the new ideas put out by those who rebelled
against God's church in the 16th- century, are not found anywhere in the early church.
15] My opponent argues that even the apostolic church did not have the power to legislate (par.
11, 15, 16, 19), and there are no papal pronouncements in scripture. Not only Jesus' statements
(Mt. 18:18, 16:19; Jn. 20:22-23; Jn. 21:15-17) but the first 15 chapters of Acts shows the power
of Peter and the apostles to reveal God's doctrine and legislate. Peter authoritatively revealed that
circumcision was not necessary for salvation (Acts. 11, 15). The Church legislated that people
could not eat food offered to idols (Acts 15:29) (bound) and by the time Paul wrote his letter to
the Corinthians, that was no longer binding (1 Cor. 14) (loosed).
16] Despite my opponents assertions I have shown: 1) the successors of the apostles do have binding authority; 2) the oral, binding Word of God is passed on after the apostles died; 3) the texts that 'prove' Sola Scriptura were sometimes not even referencing scripture, and the ones that were about scripture did not come close to proving it, as they proved tradition and church authority. Next time, before I rebut my opponents first rebuttal, I will show even further errors, in addition to reminding him of the other Sola Scriptura errors I showed in my opening statement.