Authority: Scripture, Tradition and the papacy

What you'll learn

Define sola Scriptura accurately and answer the Catholic use of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Timothy 3:15
Evaluate the Catholic case for the papacy from Matthew 16:18-19, including how the church fathers interpreted the 'rock', and assess the dogma of papal infallibility
Respond to the arguments from development of doctrine and from the canon ('the Church gave you the Bible')

What sola Scriptura does and does not mean

Sola Scriptura does not mean 'me and my Bible alone', and it does not mean tradition is worthless. It means Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church, sufficient for all that is needed for salvation and godly life (WCF 1.6; 1689 LBC 1.1). Creeds, councils, teachers and confessions are real authorities, but they are subordinate and fallible; Scripture is the norm that norms them. Keith Mathison distinguishes this classic view from 'solo Scriptura', the individualist view that ignores the church altogether. (You studied sola Scriptura in The Reliable Word, Lesson 3, and the canon in Lesson 2; this lesson applies them to Rome's particular claims.)

Catholic apologists often ask, 'Where does the Bible teach sola Scriptura?' Point them to texts that teach the Bible's sufficiency and supremacy: Scripture equips the man of God completely (2 Timothy 3:16-17), Jesus judges tradition by the written Word (Mark 7:6-13), and he repeatedly asks, 'Have you not read?' (Matthew 12:3; 22:31). Also note that during the apostles' lifetime there was living apostolic speech; sola Scriptura is a claim about the church after the apostles, when the only infallible apostolic voice we have is the written one.

What is the difference between sola Scriptura and 'solo Scriptura'?Show answer

Sola Scriptura means Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, sufficient for salvation and godly life, while creeds, councils, teachers and confessions remain real but subordinate and fallible authorities. 'Solo Scriptura', as Keith Mathison calls it, is the individualist view that ignores the church altogether, 'me and my Bible alone'. The classic Reformed view is the first, not the second.

Scripture the only infallible rule
other authorities real but fallible
solo = individualist, ignores church
Reformed hold the classic view

How would you answer a Catholic who asks, 'Where does the Bible teach sola Scriptura?'Show answer

Point to texts that teach Scripture's sufficiency and supremacy: Scripture equips the man of God completely (2 Timothy 3:16-17), Jesus judges tradition by the written Word (Mark 7:6-13), and he repeatedly asks 'Have you not read?' Also explain that sola Scriptura is a claim about the church after the apostles. While they lived there was living apostolic speech, but now the only infallible apostolic voice we have is the written one.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
Jesus judges tradition by Scripture
'Have you not read?'
claim about the post-apostolic church

2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Timothy 3:15

Paul tells the Thessalonians to 'hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter' (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Catholics argue this proves an oral tradition alongside Scripture. But notice: Paul speaks of traditions the Thessalonians had already received from him personally. The question is whether any binding apostolic teaching exists today that is not in Scripture, and if so, what it is. James White presses this point: ask your Catholic friend to name one doctrine of this oral tradition, passed on from the apostles, with historical evidence that it came from them. The Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are not traceable to the apostles; the earliest assumption accounts appear centuries later.

1 Timothy 3:15 calls the church 'a pillar and buttress of the truth'. A pillar holds up something else; it does not create it. The church upholds and proclaims the truth God has given. The text is about how believers behave in the local household of God at Ephesus, not about an infallible Roman bishop. And the same letter goes on to warn that some in the church will depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), so the church is not immune to error.

How would you respond to the use of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as proof of an oral Tradition alongside Scripture?Show answer

Paul refers to traditions the Thessalonians had already received from him personally, by word or letter. The real question is whether any binding apostolic teaching exists today outside Scripture and what it is. As James White presses, ask your friend to name one such doctrine with historical evidence that it came from the apostles; the Marian dogmas, for example, cannot be traced to them.

traditions already received from Paul
what is that tradition today?
ask for one traceable doctrine
Marian dogmas not apostolic

What does it mean that the church is 'a pillar and buttress of the truth' (1 Timothy 3:15), and why does that not prove the church is infallible?Show answer

A pillar holds up something else rather than creating it, so the church upholds and proclaims the truth God has given. The text concerns how believers behave in the local household of God at Ephesus, not an infallible Roman bishop. The same letter warns that some in the church will depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), so the church is not immune to error.

pillar upholds, does not create
about the local church at Ephesus
some will depart (4:1)
church not immune to error

Matthew 16:18-19 and the papacy

Jesus says to Peter, 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church', and gives him 'the keys of the kingdom' (Matthew 16:18-19). Rome teaches Peter was made head of the apostles, that his authority passed to the bishops of Rome, and that the pope has 'full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church' (CCC 881-882). Catholic apologists add that Jesus spoke Aramaic (Kepha, used for both Peter and rock) and that the keys echo Isaiah 22:22, where Eliakim receives the key of David's house as royal steward.

Responses: First, even granting that Peter is the rock (many Protestant scholars do, e.g. D. A. Carson), the text says nothing about successors, nothing about Rome, and nothing about infallibility. Second, the binding and loosing given to Peter is given to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18. Third, the New Testament shows Peter as a leading apostle but not a monarch: James presides at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-21), Paul rebukes Peter (Galatians 2:11), and Peter calls himself a 'fellow elder' (1 Peter 5:1).

The church fathers were not unanimous. Some identified the rock as Peter, others as Peter's confession of faith, others as Christ himself, others as all the apostles. Augustine, late in life, said he had sometimes taken the rock as Peter and sometimes as Christ, and left the reader to choose (Retractations 1.21). A survey by the 17th-century theologian Jean de Launoy, often cited by Protestants, found that a majority of the fathers and later church writers he examined (44 of 85) took the rock to be Peter's faith rather than Peter himself. Catholics contest the method, but the point stands: there was no 'unanimous consent of the fathers', which Vatican I itself required for interpreting Scripture.

Even if Peter is the 'rock' in Matthew 16:18, why does the passage not establish the papacy?Show answer

The text says nothing about successors, Rome or infallibility, and many Protestant scholars such as D. A. Carson grant that Peter is the rock. The binding and loosing given to Peter is given to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18. And the New Testament shows Peter as a leading apostle, not a monarch: James presides in Acts 15, Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians 2, and Peter calls himself a 'fellow elder'.

no successors, Rome or infallibility
binding and loosing given to all (18:18)
James presides, Paul rebukes
Peter a fellow elder

What does the evidence from the church fathers show about the meaning of the 'rock', and why does it matter?Show answer

The fathers were not unanimous: some took the rock as Peter, others as Peter's confession, Christ himself, or all the apostles, and Augustine said he had taken it both ways and left the reader to choose. Jean de Launoy's survey found most of the writers he examined took it as Peter's faith, though Catholics contest his method. This matters because Vatican I itself required the 'unanimous consent of the fathers' for interpreting Scripture, and there was none here.

fathers not unanimous
Augustine left it open
Launoy's survey
Vatican I required unanimous consent

Papal infallibility

The First Vatican Council (1870), in Pastor Aeternus, defined that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, 'from the chair' as pastor of all Christians defining a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses infallibility, and such definitions are irreformable 'of themselves and not from the consent of the Church' (see CCC 891). This is narrower than many Protestants think: it does not mean the pope is sinless or right about everything.

But it raises historical problems. Pope Honorius I (died 638) was condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), and later popes affirmed the condemnation. Many bishops at Vatican I opposed the definition as historically unsupported, and some left before the vote. And no infallible list of infallible statements exists, which undercuts the certainty the dogma promised.

Explain what papal infallibility does and does not claim.Show answer

Vatican I defined that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, as pastor of all Christians defining a doctrine of faith or morals for the whole Church, he is infallible and such definitions are irreformable of themselves. It is narrower than many Protestants think. It does not mean the pope is sinless or right about everything.

only ex cathedra definitions
faith or morals for whole Church
irreformable of themselves
not sinlessness

What historical problems does papal infallibility face?Show answer

Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople, and later popes affirmed that condemnation. Many bishops at Vatican I opposed the definition as historically unsupported, and some left before the vote. And there is no infallible list of infallible statements, which undercuts the very certainty the dogma promised.

Honorius condemned as heretic
bishops opposed at Vatican I
no infallible list of infallible statements

Development of doctrine

When challenged that doctrines like the assumption cannot be found in the early church, Catholics appeal to John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). Newman argued that true doctrine grows like an acorn into an oak: later teaching is the organic unfolding of what was there in seed form. Protestants also accept a kind of development, such as clearer creedal language about the Trinity. The difference is that the Trinity develops from what Scripture plainly teaches, while the Marian dogmas add new content without a seed in Scripture or early tradition. Vincent of Lérins' rule, what has been believed 'everywhere, always and by all', was once the Catholic test; development theory allows doctrines that fail it.

What is the difference between how Protestants accept development of doctrine and how Newman's theory is used for the Marian dogmas?Show answer

Newman argued that true doctrine grows like an acorn into an oak, later teaching unfolding what was there in seed form. Protestants accept a kind of development too, such as clearer creedal language about the Trinity, but that grows from what Scripture plainly teaches. The Marian dogmas add new content with no seed in Scripture or early tradition, and development theory permits doctrines that fail Vincent of Lérins' older test of what was believed everywhere, always and by all.

Newman's acorn-to-oak model
Trinity develops from clear Scripture
Marian dogmas add new content
fails Vincent's test

'The Church gave you the Bible'

Catholic apologists say Protestants depend on the Catholic Church for the canon, citing the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and Trent's dogmatic definition (Session 4, 1546). Reply in three steps. First, the church recognised the canon; it did not create it. Scripture is self-authenticating as God's voice (John 10:27; Michael Kruger's Canon Revisited). Second, Israel had the Old Testament without an infallible magisterium, and Jesus held people accountable to it (Romans 3:2; Matthew 22:29). Third, the Catholic Church did not define its canon infallibly until 1546. (The Council of Florence had approved the same list in 1442, but Trent was the first to make it a binding article of faith under anathema.) Before that, respected figures such as Jerome, and Cardinal Cajetan on the eve of the Reformation, did not treat the deuterocanonical books (the Apocrypha) as fully canonical. Fallible people can have true knowledge, as Israel did.

How would you reply in three steps to 'The Church gave you the Bible'?Show answer

First, the church recognised the canon rather than creating it, because Scripture is self-authenticating as God's voice (John 10:27). Second, Israel had the Old Testament without an infallible magisterium, yet Jesus held people accountable to it (Romans 3:2; Matthew 22:29). Third, Rome did not define its canon as a binding article of faith until Trent in 1546 (Florence had approved the list in 1442), and before that figures like Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan did not treat the Apocrypha as fully canonical, so fallible people can have true knowledge, as Israel did.

church recognised, not created
Israel without infallible magisterium
canon defined only in 1546
Jerome and Cajetan on Apocrypha

In their own words

“The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power he can always exercise unhindered.” (CCC 882; Lumen Gentium 22)

“When the pope speaks ex cathedra, defining a doctrine of faith or morals, he enjoys infallibility, and such definitions are irreformable of themselves.” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus ch. 4 (1870); CCC 891)

“It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.” (CCC 120; Council of Trent, Session 4 (1546))

“The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the rock of his Church, and gave him the keys; this pastoral office continues in the bishops under the primacy of the pope.” (CCC 881)

Key texts

Matthew 16:18-19: The central Catholic text for the papacy. Note what it does not say: nothing about successors, Rome or infallibility.
Matthew 18:18: The authority to bind and loose given to Peter in 16:19 is given here to all the disciples.
2 Thessalonians 2:15: Paul's traditions were delivered in person or by letter; the challenge is to show any binding oral tradition today with apostolic origin.
1 Timothy 3:15: The church as 'pillar and buttress' upholds the truth; it is not the source of it.
Galatians 2:11-14: Paul opposes Peter to his face over the gospel. Peter was not beyond correction.
Mark 7:6-13: Jesus measures tradition by the written Word of God and condemns traditions that nullify it.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Sola Scriptura isn't taught in Scripture. It's self-refuting.”Show a response

Sola Scriptura claims Scripture is the only infallible rule, and Scripture teaches that it is sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and the standard over tradition (Mark 7:13). It does not need a verse saying 'Scripture alone' any more than the Trinity needs the word Trinity. But reverse the burden: where does Scripture teach that a bishop of Rome would be infallible, or that an oral tradition parallel to Scripture would be preserved by a magisterium? If Scripture is God-breathed, and Rome agrees it is, then the question is whether anything else is also God-breathed. Rome must prove that; the default is that God's Word alone is God's Word. The early fathers regularly appealed to Scripture as the final proof; Cyril of Jerusalem told catechumens not to believe even him unless he proved it from Scripture (Catechetical Lectures 4.17).

“Without an infallible Church, you can't even know which books are in the Bible. Your canon is a fallible list of infallible books.”Show a response

Yes, and that is how God's people always lived. Israel had no infallible magisterium, yet Jesus held them accountable for knowing Scripture (Matthew 22:29-31). Fallible people can have certain knowledge through God's providence and the self-attesting voice of Scripture (John 10:27). But the Catholic is not better off: he relies on his fallible judgement to identify which church is infallible, and Rome did not define its canon infallibly until 1546, a millennium and a half after the apostles. Before that, Jerome and others questioned the deuterocanonical books. If the early church could know Scripture without Trent, so can we.

“The fathers clearly taught that Peter was the rock, and that the Roman bishop had primacy. Read Irenaeus and Cyprian.”Show a response

Some fathers do say Peter is the rock, and Irenaeus honoured Rome as an ancient apostolic church with a known succession of bishops. But that is a long way from Vatican I. Cyprian taught that all bishops share one episcopate and later resisted Pope Stephen over rebaptism. Augustine gave both readings of the rock and left the choice to readers (Retractations 1.21). Chrysostom often identified the rock with Peter's confession. Eastern churches never accepted universal jurisdiction. Vatican I required the unanimous consent of the fathers for interpreting Scripture; on Matthew 16 there is no unanimity. Primacy of honour is one thing; universal, infallible jurisdiction is another.

“Doctrine develops. Protestants accept the Trinity, which was clarified over centuries. Why not the Marian dogmas?”Show a response

Not all change is development. The Trinity is a clarification of what Scripture teaches: one God, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and they are distinct. The creeds use new words to protect biblical content. The immaculate conception and assumption, by contrast, have no clear biblical content to protect; the earliest assumption narratives come centuries after the apostles, and the immaculate conception was disputed by major medieval theologians including Thomas Aquinas. Newman's theory allows anything that later becomes accepted to be called a development, which makes it unfalsifiable. A seed must contain the oak; the New Testament contains no seed of a sinless, bodily assumed Mary.

“Paul says, 'Hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter' (2 Thessalonians 2:15). You Protestants keep the letters and throw away the word of mouth.”Show a response

I love that verse, and I want to obey it. But notice what Paul refers to: traditions the Thessalonians had already received from him personally. The question for us is whether any binding apostolic teaching exists today outside Scripture, and if so, what exactly it is. Can you name one doctrine that we know came orally from the apostles, with historical evidence that it did? The Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are often offered, but the earliest accounts of the assumption come centuries later. If an oral apostolic tradition were preserved, we would expect to be able to identify it. What we can identify with confidence is what the apostles wrote. That is why Protestants hold Scripture as the only infallible rule while still valuing creeds and teachers as real, though fallible, helps.

“Without a pope, every Protestant becomes his own pope. Who settles disputes? Sola Scriptura just produces chaos.”Show a response

That's a real concern, and I'd never defend 'me and my Bible alone'. Sola Scriptura means Scripture is the only infallible rule, while creeds, councils, confessions and pastors are real, subordinate authorities. Churches do settle disputes; they just don't claim infallibility while doing it. Remember that Israel had no infallible magisterium, yet Jesus held people responsible for knowing the Scriptures: 'Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures' (Matthew 22:29). The Bereans even checked an apostle's preaching against Scripture (Acts 17:11). And an infallible teacher doesn't remove the need to interpret: Catholics still disagree widely, and there is no infallible list of which papal statements are infallible. Every one of us must read and submit to God's Word humbly, in community. The question is which authority sits at the top, and Jesus judged tradition by Scripture (Mark 7:8-13).

Written task

A Catholic friend texts: 'You Protestants rely on the Catholic Church for your Bible and on Peter for your church. Matthew 16 settles it.' Write a 300-400 word reply that answers both claims, with Scripture and at least one historical source, while keeping the tone warm.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Accurately states the Catholic argument from Matthew 16 and the canon before answering
Uses at least two biblical texts (e.g. Matt 18:18, Gal 2:11, Rom 3:2) correctly
Cites at least one accurate historical fact (Augustine's Retractations, Trent Session 4 in 1546, Honorius, Jerome on the Apocrypha)
Distinguishes recognising the canon from creating it
Ends with a gracious, gospel-oriented question or invitation