A favourite argument of Roman Catholicism (Rome™) is that Scripture is a product of tradition, and therefore to dismiss tradition is to dismiss Scripture. They of course, couple with that, Roman Catholic interpretation of said Scriptures.

This page will explore some of the logic of that, but we will mostly save the early churches’ writings for another more in-depth post on the early churches’ views of the authority of Scripture for another time.

Why did the early church decide on what was God’s Word and what was not? Perhaps even more importantly, why were the Scriptures written in the first place? Luke states that he records these things so that people may be certain. John writes his accounts, such that the early part of the ministry may be recorded.

The Apostles wrote and the church accepted these writings to provide surety against false teachings.

We have thus set forth in these pages what has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles themselves and the apostolic age, and concerning the sacred writings which they have left us, as well as concerning those which are disputed, but nevertheless have been publicly used by many in a great number of churches, and moreover, concerning those that are altogether rejected and are out of harmony with apostolic orthodoxy.

Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Chapter 31, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Eusebius had just listed (in chapters 24 & 25) the 27 books of the New Testament that the church considered authoritative and also discussed the various apocryphal books that the church deemed heretical.

Athanasius says in Letter 39 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm), that the apocryphal books distort the faith, and concludes of the Scriptures, “These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘You err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me (Matthew 22:29; John 5:39).‘ He goes on: “[these] are included in the Canon, the latter [other texts] being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

There were several church councils that discussed these:

Council of Rome (AD.382).

Synod of Hippo (393) reaffirming the previous council list.

A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Carthage (419).[17]

These councils took place under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[18] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[15] or if not the list is at least a 6th-century compilation[19] claiming a 4th-century imprimatur.[20] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[21] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church.”[22] Thus, from the 5th century onward, the Western Church was unanimous concerning the New Testament canon.[23]

“We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the Gospel came to us; which Gospel they truly preached at first, but afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.” (Adversus Haereses, 3:1) Irenaeus.

The Scriptures are the foundation and pillar of our faith.

Three Councils were held – For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum, of uncertain authorship)[4][5] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419.[6][7] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

One of the oldest bibles in existence is the Codex Vaticanus which was written around year 350. The Codex is currently kept in Vatican. It has the 27 books of the New Testament which are accepted by all Christian denominations today. The 27 books were canonized in the council of Hippo in year 393. This was later affirmed in the council of Carthage in year 397 and 419.[9] Evidence corroborates the claims of the fourth century church councils that their canonical list are the same 27 books that the church received from the earliest bishops.[10] Irenaeus (died c. 202) quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, but does not use Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude.[11] By the early 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation[12] (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[13] Thus, while there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the “major” writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.[14]

Imagine if you will, you and I are negotiating a contract. We discuss the promises and obligations and decide to put this contract in writing. Prima facie case, the courts usually declare that the written contents are the entirety of the contract. There would need to be significant proof that the terms were altered and agreed to after the written contract was signed.

So, for Rome™ this is where their traditions come in. While they frequently conceed that many of Rome™’s practices are not explicitly taught in Scripture, they appeal to the traditions that came after Scripture written and is done, unilaterally by the authority of Rome™. It is like adding contractual obligations after the contract was written. There is no dispute on this, we all agree that the traditions came later, and Rome™ argues that she has the authority to do so.

There is a slight twist in the story. Going back to the contract analogy: if the written contract states that the promises and obligations of the contract are contained in writing, it does not matter whether new practices developed, they are not part of the contract, and it is almost impossible to get a court to view these as binding.

Scripture has such clauses. Below are just some:

1. Do not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).
2. Scripture is sufficient, to equip the man of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
3. If you go beyond the commands of Christ, you do not have God (2 John 1:9)
4. Teach all that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:20)
5. Do not teach the traditions of men as the commands of God (Mark 7:6-13; Colossians 2:8)
6. Do not follow cleverly devised myths (2 Peter 1:16)

Back to the contract analogy. The church may well have taken 3 centuries to agree what should be in the “contract”, but the “contract” states many times over, to not go beyond what is written, to not follow traditions as though they are the commands of God, and that Scripture is sufficient. Therefore, regardless of how or when the church agreed was to be canon (authoritative Scripture), Scripture itself forbids and condemns traditions not in writing, being bound to the conscience of believers.

Rome™ of course will argue that the text itself permits traditions. They quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as support:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

We see that Paul communicated traditions by word of mouth and by writing. However, we have no traditions (that we know of) that Paul taught, that were not committed to writing. And after Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he wrote to the church in Corinth and explicitly told the church not to go beyond what was written.

Just as there are no traditions not committed to writing from Paul, we likewise have no commands or teachings of Jesus outside of Scripture. In the Great Commission, Jesus commanded the church to teach his commands. And John writes that if we go beyond his commands, we do not have God. The church is not given any authority to teach its own ideas, just as Jesus only spoke the words of the Father (John 8,12, 14).

This should be a closed case. The agreement of the canon, in the text of canon itself, ends recourse to traditions, teachings and commands that are not in Scripture. We are not to bind practices, teachings, traditions, or commands to the believer, if they are not the commands of God. A church that does that, as John writes, does not have God.

But Rome™ appeals to Scripture for its practices, I hear in reply. This is true, but it does not mean they are commands of God. Satan also quoted Scripture. Just as the Pharisees disobeyed the commands of God to honour their parents by the trick of Corban (dedicating something to God, so they don’t have to give it to their parents), and did so by appealing to Scripture, so too there are many practices of Rome™ that have no Scriptural command to bind the conscience or are twisted way beyond the intent of Scripture. Here are just some:

1. Supremacy of Rome
2. Apostolic succession
3. Papal authority
4. Papal infallibility
5. Priest celibacy
6. Indulgences
7. Purgatory
8. Prayers to Mary or other dead saints
9. Adoration of Mary
10. Perpetual virginity of Mary
11. Assumption of Mary (rising bodily to heaven)
12. Rosary and scapular
13. Hail Mary prayers
14. Re-sacrificing Christ each Eucharist/mass
15. Penance

Most importantly, none of these add to, assist or improve your salvation, or faithfulness before God. None. Yet they are a very large part of the life of a convert to Rome™. These things have nothing to do with the Gospel, nothing to do with the commands Christ commanded us to teach disciples. Rome™ binds these to the conscience and makes converts exert great energy pursuing these things that have no value before God or your neighbour.

The eventual agreement of what was the Words of God, and what was not, meant that all men everywhere were bound to obey, and Christians especially accepted that these words were supreme. Here the church accepted that God’s Word was supreme over all other teachings and practices, and that all people, teachings and practices must submit to the authority of Scripture. Those that did not accept God’s word over all were, by definition, heretics.