The Catholic View of Scripture and Tradition
Catholic Answers currently speaks on this topic of Scripture and Tradition on their website; which may be accessed at www.catholic.com/scripture-and-tradition (they will ask for donations). (This document represents their current position, as of November 29, 2025, but it was first posted on August 10, 2004.) Mostly, they try to explain the Catholic view on this subject and contrast it with the “Protestant” view. The problem with this approach is that many who are Christians consider themselves to be just that—Christians. We are neither Catholic nor Protestant. Having pointed that out, there is no claim here that they intentionally misrepresent anyone—just that they lump everyone under the Protestant category, with whom Christians frequently disagree.
Sufficiency
They claim that Protestants believe that the Scriptures are all-sufficient and that we don’t need “apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it.” Apostolic tradition will be examined later, but Christians do agree that “the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages.”
Truth is a concept that is duly emphasized in the Bible. The fact of truth’s existence always undergirds the teachings and events in the Scriptures. The Israelites were to serve God “in sincerity and in truth” (Joshua 24:14). Samuel said: “Only fear the Lord, and serve Him in truth with all your heart…” (1 Sam. 12:24). God told Solomon that Israel was to walk before Him “in truth with all their heart and with all their soul…” (1 Kings 2:4).
The writer of Psalm 119 declared, “…Your law is truth” (Psalm 119:142) and “…all Your commandments are truth” (v. 151). Solomon advised: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Pr. 23:23). Things were so bad in Jeremiah’s day that he was told to search for anyone “who seeks the truth” (Jer. 5:1). All of these verses (and many more) are from the Old Testament. They all emphasize knowing truth or serving God according to truth.
The amazing thing is that no one needed the Roman Catholic Church to preserve these Scriptures. That group did not come into existence until after Jesus lived, died, was resurrected, and ascended into heaven (and a few hundred years after that, too). No, the Jews preserved the Old Testament writings, which were written mostly in Hebrew. These were collected and carefully copied. Then they were translated into the Greek language about 275 B.C. (called the Septuagint) and made available to anyone who wanted to read them.
All of this was accomplished without any help from the Roman Catholic Church which had yet to be established. Now if the Old Testament could be assembled and preserved without “the magisterium,” why does the New Testament need one? Hmm.
Truth was written and taught in the Old Testament, period, which numbered about 1,500 years. It needed neither Catholics nor Protestants to be available when Jesus came to earth, and He quoted frequently from the Septuagint Version. Truth was available and knowable then, just as the New Testament is now. Today, true worshipers can “worship the Father in spirt and in truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him” (John 4:23). Jesus said He was “the way, the truth, and the life” and that no one could come to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). No one needs the Catholic Magisterium to come to God. Jesus is sufficient.
Notice that Jesus said that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17)—not traditions that no one can find recorded in the Scriptures. Truth is what is girded around the waist of the Christian soldier (Eph. 6:14). People will be eternally lost because they did not receive the love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10). Those who claim to know God but do not keep His commandments are liars, and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4).
One of the most pertinent verses to this topic is John 8:31-32, where Jesus promised: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Just as with the Old Testament, the truths in the New Testament are present for all to see (who abide in Jesus’ Word). No special apparatus is needed to understand it; no magisterium is required to endorse alleged apostolic traditions. Catholic Answers informs its readers that Catholics take Scripture
plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scriptures correctly (second paragraph).
Well, one does not have to be a genius to see where this is going. Their religion is what the Bible teaches plus whatever they say is valid tradition. How is this different than other cults? The Mormons teach that they go by the Bible plus the revelations given to Joseph Smith. The Jehovah’s Witnesses go by the Bible plus what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society tells them. Equally exasperating are all of the “Holy Spirit-filled” folks who insist that no one can understand the Scriptures unless the Holy Spirit dwells within them.
All of these insidious claims are false. Jesus said that all authority was given to Him in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:18). There are no secret Holy Spirit revelations, no special Watchtower posts, no Mormon dictums, and no valid apostolic traditions outside of the New Testament. These are all attempts to control their followers by giving them additional information than what is in the Bible. Those who simply follow God’s Word do not need any additional manmade teachings.
Traditions
According to the website, both tradition and Scripture are valid; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is cited as proof, and that verse says: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Christians have no problem whatsoever with this verse, but it does not mean what John Henry Newman (and other Catholics) ascribe it to mean. They think this verse indicates that the Word of God is not sufficient, but that Paul “requires the aid of Tradition.” This interpretation is not even close to the truth. They view these as traditions that were not recorded in the Bible that the apostles and the church community revealed at a later time. Maybe some have still not been revealed?
Paul meant no such notion. Catholic Apologists did not quote the verse. Why not? It actually refutes their point. Paul says to stand fast and hold the traditions they were taught. These were not secrets; they were openly-taught truths—not something hidden away for future use. Some traditions they had spoken orally while with them; other teachings had been written down in a previous letter. Paul’s point is that whether they received a teaching by word in person or by letter, it was all the Word of God and valid.
Furthermore, these were not traditions that were going to be established; they already had been. They probably included the correct way to worship, as well as when and how. Some traditions probably centered on the love brethren were to have for one another—or other Christian attributes that were needed. Some established traditions concerned the second coming of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Peter, speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, set the pattern for what was to be taught concerning salvation (Acts 2:38-41). Later, a tradition of spreading the gospel would be put into place.
When Israel left Egypt, they established new traditions, such as the Passover, which had never been observed prior to the night before they left Egypt. God gave them instructions for the tabernacle and other aspects of their worship. These were not past traditions; they were newly-established ones. And so it was with the church. Baptism had not been required before; the Lord’s Supper was newly instituted. These became Christian traditions, taught by the apostles. These are the kinds of things that became traditions henceforth.
They are far different than the type of traditions that the Catholic Church tries to foist upon its people. They could invent a new doctrine next week—and claim it was an apostolic tradition—though it had not been observed for nearly 2,000 years. This kind of thinking is ludicrous.
All or Some
Peter wrote that God “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness…” (2 Peter 1:3). The us in the verse probably means all Christians, but what if it meant only the apostles? Are we to believe that they had all things and refused to share it with the church? Notice that Peter said God gave ALL things, not SOME. Everything God wanted the followers of Jesus to know had been revealed (probably to all Christians). But if not, then certainly the apostles had it all. Did they just sit on the information and decide to parcel it out over the centuries? Who can believe it? The Bible deals with every spiritual scenario either directly or in principle. And it has since the first century. Nothing has been saved for a new controversy yet to arrive.
Catholics should also consider a similar verse. Jude exhorted Christians “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3). The faith also refers to the gospel, the doctrine, the truth, the way, and the Word (John 17:17; Acts 13:8-12; Rom. 1: 16; Gal. 1:6-9; Eph. 4:5). The faith (all doctrine) has been delivered to the saints. All! Not 50%, 75%, or even 99%. All! Here there can be no doubt of who received it—Christians did. So, how can anyone honestly say that there were traditions that did not come to light for centuries? Hogwash! God revealed everything by the end of the first century—and it was all recorded in the books of the New Testament by the end of the first century. The Scriptures are inspired, sufficient for all things (especially to refute false teaching), and complete.
Who dares to write more Scriptures than what the Bible contains? The Mormons have. They have Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and who knows how many “revelations” have been added since the time of Brigham Young by Mormon “Presidents” or one of their modern-day apostles? Are the writings of the Watchtower authoritative? Probably not—since they can change their beliefs on a dime and then marvel at how they have “grown.” How about the writings of Ellen G. White or Mary Baker Eddy? Are they from God? Yet Catholic Apologists want us to believe that unwritten traditions are valid today because the Catholic Church says so. Are they not aware of how one council has reversed the teachings of another? Surely, they don’t need proof of that fact. So which teaching was apostolic—the teaching that was established or the new one that teaches the opposite?
Until 1870, the pope was not regarded as infallible, but since that time he is so regarded. Which was the teaching of the early church? Actually, it was neither one because there was no pope in the church in the first century. There was also not a separate priesthood, a mass, extreme unction, confirmation, or purgatory. Were these some of the secret traditions that brethren knew about but said nothing of them? Of course not.
Catholic Apologists attempt to make the gospel a tradition, citing 1 Corinthians 15:3, where the word tradition does not appear. Furthermore, it concerns the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, which had been preached since the Day of Pentecost. If we want to define it as a tradition, fine, but it is one that every member of the church has known from the very beginning. The “Apologists” are grasping at straws—and not being very successful at doing so. They are simply trying to justify practices that are not in the New Testament.