Introduction
Two men sit across a wooden table in a dimly lit library. Andrew, an Orthodox Christian, leans forward with a well-worn Septuagint and patristic writings at his elbow. Martin, an earnest evangelical, grips his KJV Bible. Their debate centers on authority: Scripture alone versus Scripture and Holy Tradition. Andrew argues that sola scriptura is a Reformation-era innovation, while Martin insists it is biblical. Let us listen as history, Scripture, and logic collide…
________________________________________
Martin: “Brother, the Bible is clear: All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV). We don’t need traditions! Christ rebuked the Pharisees for elevating their traditions over God’s Word!”
Andrew: “Christ indeed condemned human traditions that contradict God’s law (Mark 7:8-9). But Paul commands the Thessalonians to stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV). Jude urges us to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3, KJV). The Greek word for ‘delivered’ is paradidōmi, a verb meaning to ‘tradition.’ The faith was handed down (‘traditioned’) through apostolic teaching and practice, not just ink on parchment.”
Martin: “But Scripture is sufficient! Paul says it equips us for every good work.”
Andrew: “Paul wrote 2 Timothy in the 60s AD, which was before Revelation, John’s epistles, or even Luke’s Gospel were written. If all Scripture in his day meant only the Old Testament, does that mean the New Testament is unnecessary? Of course not! The verse says Scripture is profitable, not Scripture is sufficient. Even your Reformed scholars admit Scripture’s sufficiency is material, not formal. This means that they say everything necessary is in Scripture, but that Scripture alone does not guarantee correct interpretation or resolve all controversies. However, this undermines the Protestant claim that sola scriptura eliminates the need for Tradition or Church authority, because if Scripture is only materially sufficient, then something outside Scripture (such as tradition or the Church) is still required for interpretation and doctrinal unity.
Along these lines, without Tradition, how do you even know which books belong in the Bible? Apart from Tradition, the Bible does not even have a table of contents. For four centuries, Christians did not have a universally accepted canon of Scripture. Several books of the New Testament were hotly disputed in the early Church (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation). The Council of Carthage (397 AD) finalized the New Testament canon (and its Old Testament canon included the “Apocrypha”- books like Wisdom, Tobit and the Maccabees). Your Reformed Bible created a new tradition that removed them, but before that, they were in every Christian Bible for 1,100 years.
Martin: “The early Church Fathers quoted Scripture as final authority!”
Andrew: “Irenaeus1, a second-century bishop, wrote: We should obey the presbyters in the Church… those who possess the succession from the apostles. ‘For they… guard the Faith… without addition or diminution’ (Against Heresies 4.26.2). Clement of Alexandria also attests to Tradition as a deposit of apostolic truth, ‘Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition.2‘ We also have Origen faithfully giving the early Christian teaching about the authority of Scripture and Tradition, ‘The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”3 The Fathers saw Scripture and Tradition as one seamless garment. Augustine declared: I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5.6). You trust Tradition to give you the canon and even the names ‘Matthew,’ ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ and ‘John’ and yet reject it for the interpretation of those same books? That’s inconsistent.”
Martin: “But private interpretation is forbidden! Peter says no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20, KJV).”
Andrew: “Exactly! Scripture isn’t a puzzle for individuals. The Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip to explain Isaiah’s prophecies to him (Acts 8:30-35). The Orthodox Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Fathers, preserves the apostolic interpretation. Yet sola scriptura fractures Christianity into thousands of contradicting denominations, each claiming the ‘clear meaning’ of Scripture. If Scripture alone is so clear, why can’t Protestants agree on such important essentials as baptismal regeneration, predestination vs. free will, whether salvation can be lost, or whether the Eucharist is real or symbolic?”
Martin: “Christ said, Search the Scriptures (John 5:39, KJV). He didn’t mention Tradition!”
Andrew: “Christ also said to the leaders of the Church, He that heareth you heareth me (Luke 10:16, KJV). He founded a Church, not a book club. The New Testament itself is a product of Tradition, written by apostles and preserved by bishops. As for your canon, Luther wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament. Without an authoritative Tradition and apostolically ordained leaders, who decides? Your sola scriptura rests on a foundation it denies.”
Martin: “Andrew, I hear your arguments about tradition and the early Church, but at the end of the day, I have to stand on the Word of God alone. Scripture is the only thing we know for certain that is inspired and trustworthy. Traditions can be corrupted, but the Bible is pure. If we go beyond what is written, we risk adding to God’s Word. I just want to follow what the Bible says—nothing more, nothing less. That’s why I hold to sola scriptura.”
Andrew: “Let’s address the elephant in the room, Martin. Sola scriptura isn’t taught anywhere in Scripture- it fails its own test. If ‘Scripture alone’ were truly biblical, Paul would have written, ‘Hold only to our epistles.’ Still, instead he commands adherence to both oral and written tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Even your proof texts for sola scriptura, such as 2 Timothy 3:16, never claim Scripture is the sole authority. Where does the Bible say, ‘Reject all traditions and follow only this book’? It doesn’t. Your doctrine is a 16th-century innovation, absent in the early Church, and unknown to all Christians from the Day of Pentecost until the beginning of the Reformation. As Irenaeus wrote, The Church, having received this preaching and this faith… guards it with care, as dwelling in a single house (Against Heresies 1.10.2). Without even realizing it, you rely on the Church’s Tradition to define what books are in the New Testament and reject Luther’s efforts to discard Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation! But on what basis do you reject Luther’s intention apart from the authority of Tradition?
Consider also: If Scripture alone suffices, why did God allow His Church to function for four centuries without a closed New Testament?
Your position is self-refuting: you use Tradition to build a canon, then discard Tradition to interpret it. That’s like using a ladder to climb a wall, then kicking the ladder away and claiming you never needed it.”
Conclusion
Martin falls silent, grappling with the circularity of his position. Andrew’s arguments, rooted in Scripture, history, and the consensus of centuries, expose sola scriptura as a theological ouroboros, devouring its own tail. The Orthodox stance, prima scriptura, acknowledges Scripture’s supremacy within Holy Tradition, the “faith once delivered” that binds the Church across time. As the debate ends, the weight of 2,000 years leans heavily on the table.
- Irenaeus was a second century bishop of Lyons. He had been taught the Faith by Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. So Irenaeus is a spiritual grandson of the Apostles. ↩︎
- Written around 208 A.D. in Miscellanies 1:1 ↩︎
- Written around 225 A.D. in The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 ↩︎
