Answer to Question 3

“I don’t have to prove myself right; I just have to prove YOU wrong!”

Sadly, this is what this question seems to be doing. Mr. Guthrie has taken the affirmative in trying to prove from Scripture, that sola scriptura is taught. Rather than present evidence in favor of Sola Scriptura, we now see Mr. Guthrie going on the offensive against the Catholic position. It is an obvious fallacy to assume if you can disprove the Catholic position, sola scriptura is true. When I agreed to this debate, I specifically asked that the debate only pertain to whether or not the Bible teaches sola scriptura, and this was agreed to. Normally when one cannot defend, he goes on the offensive. I see this as a prime example, Scripture cannot teach Sola Scriptura, and so we must attack the Catholic position. I have offered a rigid definition which is the official position of the Reformers, and theologians, on the formal sufficiency of scripture, which Mr. Guthrie is forced to prove by taking the affirmative. As irrelevant as this question is in regards to whether or not sola scriptura can be proven from scripture, to satisfy Mr. Guthrie’s question, it shall be answered.

     In the times of the Early Church, numerous texts went around claiming to be written by Apostles, such as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. How did we know the Gospel of Thomas was inspired by God, compared to lets say The Second General Epistle of Peter? So how did 2 Peter wind up being canonical, when a Gospel was alleged to be written by Thomas the Apostle, wasn’t canonical. Anglican Patristic Scholar J.N.D. Kelley offers some insight:

"Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be" (Early Christian Doctrines, 60).

This doesn’t rule Thomas out. There were 2 further tests, both involving Sacred Tradition. The books which were apostolic and inspired did not contradict the already received Oral Tradition handed on by the Apostles. Next, an appeal was made to the sense of the faithful, as to whether or not the alleged scripture was read by the Churches in general.

     Of course, this does not mean we invent new doctrine, as the Church has never stated we accept ongoing revelation. So if something claims to be Tradition, it is tested against what already is Revealed in the Word of God (Which biblically is not just written word) Naturally, in the Early Church, The Gospel of Thomas was pit against the Oral Tradition of the Church, the teaching of the Apostles, and was hence rejected.

     So while this question is not even relevant to the debate, it is simple, Tradition is tested against already received Revelation, from Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition.(1)

Question 3 | Response to Tierney

© 2002 Kevin Tierney