The necessary contentions of those who oppose Sola Scriptura

Religions that oppose Sola Scriptura must contend that either:

A. Their leaders still receive revelation from God.

or

B. Man's word is equal to God's word.

The problem with option A is that actual messengers of God must satisfy a very strict criteria. They must, or at the very least should:

- Agree with previous revelation.

- Bring forth some prophecy that comes to pass.

- Perform some kind of sign or miracle that could only come from God.

Agreement with prior revelation is vital. In Deuteronomy 13:1-3, God tells us that sometimes, miracle workers and prophets actually can succeed, whether they be empowered by Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10), or are just smart enough to predict events or perform complex magic tricks. Yet, if they speak in the name of another god, they are to be killed. (Note: Killing of modern false prophets is not a part of the New Covenant, but that was the punishment prior to the fulfilment of the Law). So really, there is literally no way around this one. Disagree with prior revelation, i.e. the Bible, you are not a prophet of God, you have no authority, and Christians should avoid you like the plague you will bring upon yourself and your followers on Judgement Day. This is especially significant, as Sola Scriptura itself is a prior revelation (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Religions that oppose it always oppose prior revelation by definition, and this is the very reason they oppose it in the first place.

If this test comes to pass, we can ask whether the "prophet" has brought forth testable prophecy. In Amos 3:7, we're told that God does nothing without telling His prophets. It isn't surprising, then, that everything in the New Testament was foretold in the Old. The virgin birth, the fact that it would happen in Bethlehem, the miracles, the Triumphal Entry, Judas' betrayal, the crucifixion, the resurrection, you will find all of this and more in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 18:22, by contrast, tells us that if someone speaks in the name of the Lord, and that prophecy fails, they are not from God. They spoke presumptuously. And, of course, in pre-Christian Israel, death was the punishment.

It's actually quite rare for religions to try to make verifiable prophecies (i.e. prophecies that ought to come to pass within the prophet's lifetime), for obvious reasons. Some of them, however, do. When they do, these also rarely come to pass. In fact, I am unaware of a single exception.

What about the signs/miracles? The Bible is replete with them. Moses did a lot of miracles, Elijah did a lot of miracles, the Apostles (some of whom modern prophets claim to be the successors of) did a lot of miracles. If you have a message that will alter the very course of the faith (by the way, Jude 1:3 tells us this won't happen), God's going to give you some kind of supernatural ability to verify that you're not just some scam artist. Not surprisingly, false prophets rarely, if ever, perform miracles.

Jesus passed every single test you can throw at a prophet. His revelations agreed with previous scripture (to which He appealed frequently and dogmatically, which it should again be noted deniers of Sola Scriptura do not imitate). He was spoken about prophetically, and made prophecies which did come to pass. He not only performed many signs and wonders, but also gave His disciples the power to do likewise. And when the Jews still killed Him as a false prophet, He resisted that penalty by walking out of His grave, proving beyond all reasonable dispute that He wasn't lying. By contrast, no denier of Sola Scriptura has even begun to fulfil the criteria of a prophet, and they all display at least one sign of being false prophets.

So obviously they're not speaking to God. But can they speak on His behalf? Can tradition be equal to scripture? As it turns out, no. Jesus really wasn't a fan of that. This was the fallacy of the Pharisees. They would often add things to the word of God that, according to Jesus, ended up making the word of God "of no effect" (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:3). When you add to God's word, you end up either disobeying it (Deuteronomy 4:2), or at the very least being reproved and found a liar (Proverbs 30:6). Man-made traditions are seen as empty and deceitful (Colossians 2:8). Now, that's obviously not to say that you cannot have traditions. There is even evidence that Christ Himself celebrated Hanukkah, and the New Testament is replete with calls to unity in spite of the diversity of personal traditions. What it does mean is that these traditions are to be observed between yourself and the Lord. You don't get to bind men with your own traditions, you don't get to forbid people from having their own. God is perfectly capable of spreading His own messages, and He has done so in the scriptures themselves.

But opponents of Sola Scriptura will never admit that their traditions are man made. This is ironic, as when they attempt to defend their traditions, they appeal not to any divine revelation, but to the teachings of men. For example, it is not uncommon for them to quote the so-called Church "Fathers".

There are several major flaws with this reasoning. The first is that, being men, the Church "Fathers" (who were not the fathers of the Church) were not perfectly united, either with each other or even with themselves. They made mistakes, as men do. And they learned, as men do. What a Church "Father" believed early in his life is not necessarily what he believed as he approached his grave.

But even if it was, would that matter? Did God grant these people a special authority? Are some of their teachings divinely inspired? (See previous half to see how such would have to be verified). I don't see any attempt to call their writings scripture, so evidently they weren't considered equal to God by the early Church. The truth is, the so-called Church "Fathers", while they were prominent, were neither prophets, nor Apostles. John MacArthur may be a prominent voice in the modern Church, it doesn't make his beliefs infallible. Ignatius of Antioch may have been a prominent figure in the early Church, that doesn't make his views infallible.

But some might argue (correction, some do argue) that some of the Church "Fathers" were actually able to hear the Apostles speak. Surely that gives them some credibility, right? There are three more problems with this view.

First, actually, no. The authority of an Apostle was not transferable. In fact, it seems the criteria for being an Apostle actually included seeing Jesus Himself (e.g. Acts 9:26-30; 1 Corinthians 9:1). So no, merely seeing the Apostles, even studying under them, does not grant one authority.

Second, assuming it did, we're not dealing with the "Fathers" either. The Apostles themselves warned that churches could be corrupted from within as easily as from without (Acts 20:30). For sure, no Church that makes claims of Apostolic succession has escaped corruption, both from Christianity as a whole, and even from its previously held doctrines.

But third, if we assume Apostolic authority can be passed down, we have to ask what exactly that would mean? As it turns out, the Apostles were not capable of changing the faith either. Neither were they immune to the test of scripture. Rather, they considered themselves stewards (e.g. 1 Corinthians 4:1-2). They absolutely could make mistakes, and we see from their own writings that they definitely did (e.g. Galatians 2:11-21). For this cause, Paul effectively threatens himself: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9). And in Acts 17:11, we see evidence that the practice of testing the Apostles against scripture preceded the book of Galatians. The Berean Jews, when Paul preached to them, did not surrender their Bibles and bow to him. They searched the scriptures daily to find out if what Paul was preaching was true. Only when Paul passed that test did they accept him.

We see, then, that the Apostles themselves did not have authority to bring new traditions or doctrines! They were only delivering what they, themselves, were delivered by God. And of course, in doing so, they fulfilled the aforementioned criteria of prophethood. They agreed with prior revelation, delivered prophecy that came to pass, and performed signs/miracles. Those who claim to be their successors do not.

So in other words, even if you have a Church that can claim "I have a tradition that was taught by the Apostles", and appeals to people who may or may not have known the Apostles, they have nothing. If it isn't taught in scripture, it's not necessarily Christian. It may even be anti-Christian. According to the divinely inspired Apostle Paul, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." As Christians, we need nothing else to complete our faith than the word of God Himself.