The majority of the faiths calling themselves Christian claim to hold to the idea that the scriptures alone are the sole source of authority in spiritual matters pertaining to living a godly life and salvation. This is often referred to as Sola Scriptura. There are other doctrines out there regarding spiritual authority. Some view scripture as the primary source of spiritual authority, but not the only source. This is called Prima Scriptura. The reality is that this is the position that most Protestant denominations take, while saying they hold to Sola Scriptura. They will reference their creeds, manuals, and other traditions as sources of spiritual authority, while holding that the Bible is the primary source. Still others, like the Catholics and various Orthodox faiths hold to the idea that the scriptures and the traditions of the Church (meaning their leadership) hold equal authority. Even this idea is somewhat incorrect as they will argue that the Church gave the world the scriptures and therefore imply that the Church (ekklesia) has the higher authority. This is sometimes called Prima Ekklesia.
The churches of Christ hold to the authority of the scripture alone without appeals to creeds, manuals, traditions, or church authority. It is one of the few faiths within the umbrella of "Christianity" that is strictly Sola Scriptura.
There are those, particularly the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, that will claim that the idea of Sola Scriptura is not only not in the scriptures, but is a relatively recent innovation that sprang from Protestant minds. Is that the case? I plan to show that it is entirely Biblical.
Jesus spent three and a half years teachings His disciples. As the time neared for His crucifixion, He gathered with His closest friends, those He had chosen and was about to send out into the world to establish His kingdom, the church. Judas had already left to betray Him, so only eleven remained. They would later be joined by Matthias and Saul of Tarsus. Jesus is explicit in what He told these men who would hold this specific office:
John 14:6 - "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus told these men that no one could come to God the Father except by Jesus, except by the truth. We are focusing on this word truth here for a reason.
John 14:10 - "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Jesus was in perfect unity with the Godhead. So much so that He claimed that the truth that He spoke to them were not of Himself, but of the Father. So we see the establishment of an authoritative hierarchy here. The Father gave truth to the Son. Then...
John 14:16 - "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;"
This whole section of Jesus speech is about Jesus going away for a while while they established the church. This is the nobleman of Luke 19, the lord of the house of Matthew 25:14-30. Yet Jesus tells them that while He is gone, He will give these men another Comforter who would remain with them for ever (for the rest of their lives). What would this Comforter do?
John 14:23-26 - "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Herein is the chain of authority advanced. The Father gave the Son words to speak, who then spoke them to His apostles. The Father then sends the Holy Spirit in the name of (with the authority of) Jesus to teach these men into all things. The Holy Ghost would bring all things to their memory that Jesus had said unto them. Nothing would be left out. Again Jesus tells them:
John 15:3-7 - "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."
Jesus tells them that they are clean through the word which He had spoken to them and that they were to remain in Him. If any man does not remain in Christ they would be cast out, gathered up, and burned. How do they abide in Christ, if His words abide in them. We are sanctified by the word of truth (John 17:17). Jesus says yet again:
John 16:13 - "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."
The Apostles would be guided into all truth. Not just some of it, but all of it.
Peter makes the claim again in 2 Peter 1:3 - "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" The Apostles had been given all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge imparted to them by Christ. Jude vs 3 says, "earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints."
Herein is the case made that the Apostles were given all truth and it was fully delivered in the lifetime of the Apostles. If they were given all truth and it was fully delivered in their lifetimes, it is not rational to expect more truth after the Apostles were gone from this world, to expect more truth after the first century AD. We had all we needed back then.
During the first century, from the cross to the point that Jude vs 3 speaks of, the Apostles and those they imparted miraculous gifts to by the laying on of the Apostle's hands (see Acts 8 and 19), preached the gospel without it being in written form. This oral teaching was necessary while they went about writing all that Christ had taught them, all that the Holy Spirit was guiding them into, all truth. Paul speaks of this in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Peter referred to Paul's writings as "scripture" in 2 Peter 3:16. Paul admonishes Christians not to think of one another "above what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). John, writing at the end of the first century when most of the other Apostles had died, writes the following:
John 20:30-31 - "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
The things written in John's letter were written that they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and in believing that, those who read would have life through Jesus. John wrote down truth that they may have life. He writes this in multiple places, too.
1 John 5:13 - " These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
1 John 1:1-4 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full."
Even in the book of Revelation John was told to write (Revelation 1:3, 11, 19) and anyone who added to or subtracted from what had been written was damned (Revelation 22:18-19). A curse God had put on people throughout time (Deuteronomy 4:2) for only God has the authority to add or take away from His word (Hebrews 7:12-14). Those who teach as doctrine the commandments of men worship God in vain (Matthew 15:9) and will be destroyed (Matthew 15:13).
What then does Paul say about the scriptures, that which is written?
2 Timothy 3:15-17 - "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Timothy was a young man. The Apostles had already begun writing down the New Testament when he was a child. He was taught the holy writings, both from the Old and New Testament which is indicated by Paul saying they would make him wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. If it had just been the Old Testament, those scriptures alone could not do that.
Paul then writes that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. That isn't just the Old but the New Testament as well for they are called scripture as we saw in 2 Peter 3:16. Everything the Apostles and their companions such as Mark, Luke, and the writer of Hebrews wrote down, they did so by divine guidance from the Holy Spirit until it was completed (1 Corinthians 13:8-13; Jude vs 3). These writings were profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, all the things the Christians would need to be complete, thoroughly equipped unto all good works. Paul is writing towards the end of his life and he leaves Timothy with these comforting words. He is saying I'm going to die soon. My race is run, his course is finished (2 Tim 4), but you will have the divine guidance we wrote down for you, Timothy, and that will give you everything you need for life and godliness, everything you need for all good works. The infancy of the church would soon end and the oral traditions of these eye witnesses would be written down and the oral part would die with them leaving only that which was written.
Notice the word all that runs throughout these passages. The Holy Ghost would teach them all things that Jesus taught them, bring all things to their memory, guide them into all truth, give them all things that pertain to life and godliness, all scripture is God-breathed, all good works. Folks, if God gave us all of this by the end of the first century, and He did, then there is nothing else left. Anything more than what is written is, by definition, an addition to the Word of God and a damnable heresy.
I will take the first 10 objections from the following website: A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura. As more unique objections are brought to my attention, I will address those here as well.
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.
The case I laid out above shows that it is. Note here that the Catholics admit "every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction". I have shown that sola scriptura is found implicitly and can be reasoned to by deduction above.
“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
“For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).
This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
Note that even here, the things the Catholics refer to in terms of oral tradition were eventually written down. The only way they know of them is because they were written, not because they were passed down orally to today. Yes, there was a time when the written word of God was not complete. I acknowledged that above. However, that time ended when the faith was once and for all delivered to the saints around the end of the first century AD. There is no authoritative source that states or implies that oral tradition would continue. In fact, the written word argues against this by teaching that the Apostles were guided into all truth and that the God-breathed scriptures completes us and thoroughly equips us to all good works.
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
This amounts to nothing more than begging the question. The Catholics assert that their magisterium is the successors to the Apostles and thus carry on their oral tradition. Where do we find the doctrine of Apostolic Succession? Not in scripture but in the oral traditions of these alleged successors.
The Traditions of the Apostles were written down, delivered once and for all to the church of the first century. This was the all truth the Holy Ghost guided them into during their lifetimes. We have those Apostolic traditions today, not in the form of the usurped authority of the Catholic magisterium, but in the written words of the New Testament (2 Peter 3:16).
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
Yes. During a time when all truth had not been written down yet, there were still oral traditions available through the guidance and power of the Holy Ghost. We now have every single one of these oral prophecies written down in the very written passages the Catholics cite in their objection, leaving no necessary tradition unwritten. This is the same as Objection #2 and is dealt with by the same reasoning.
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
Again, this objection is defeated because the Catholics have to refer to what was written about the Apostles to make their case. Yes, during the time before all truth was once and for all delivered to the saints, they had to have direct guidance by the Holy Spirit. This objection is no different than Objection #2 and as such is dealt with by the same reasoning.
Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.
The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.
The Catholics who wrote this probably didn't consider what they were saying to well before they did. To them, "Christianity" = Catholicism. So to write that "Christianity" was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism is to write that that Catholic faith is based in the Jewish traditions of the Pharisees. Yet we see time and again Jesus chastising the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the Word of God (e.g. Mark 7:1-13). It was the Pharisees that Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 15:2-13. This is the worst argument they could have made because it points to the exact error they make in adding their traditions to the word of God, making the word of God of no effect. An example of this would be the teachings of Original Sin and Infant Sprinkling which lead one to believe they have been saved without following the proscribed pattern in the written word: hear the gospel (Romans 10:17), believe it (John 3:16; Mark 16:16), repent of your sins (2 Corinthians 7:10), confessing faith in Christ (Romans 10:9-10), and then being buried with Christ in baptism (Romans 6), not sprinkled.
Furthermore, comparing those who hold to Sola Scriptura (which, as I showed above, does not include the Protestants) to the Sadducees, is a type of boogeyman fallacy. "Oooo, Sadducees bad. You do what they do. You're bad." The Sadducees were not sola scriptura. They denied the resurrection of the dead which is written about in the Old Testament (Job 14, 19, & 33; Psalms; Hosea 6:2; Ezekiel 37; Isa 26:19; 53:10-13; 2 Kings 4:18-37).
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:
a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).
b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).
So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).
This is just Objection #2 stated a different way. Of course they didn't believe in sola scriptura. They did not have the entirety of scripture, that "all truth" that was given to the Apostles and once and for all delivered to the saints. They lived in a time when direct, divine guidance through the prophets remained. But Paul said that prophecy would pass away along with the other miracles when "that which is complete" is come. We have that now, the completed word of God, all truth. There is nothing more we need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:
“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.
This objection is just a restatement of Objection #3. It has already been addressed. During the time of the first century when all truth given to the Apostles was being delivered to the saints, they had to have the oral traditions and prophets. Once that was "once and for all delivered to the saints" then we had all that was necessary to thoroughly furnish us to all good works, So yes, until the church was brought to maturity (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), there was oral tradition from the Apostles and those they laid their hands on.
Guys, there is only so many ways they can make the same argument, but it is always refuted the same way as I have done already numerous times. They think that we will be convinced by the number of times that they make the same objection, especially if they reword it a little each time. Yet we see it for what it is, an objection already dealt with by the written word.
If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).
“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.”
And yet again, the Catholics appeal to what Paul wrote down "in this letter". At every turn where the Catholics try to show that they have authority beyond the written word of God, they instead appeal to the written word of God which shows that it is the written word that has authority today.
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.
This is the point I made above. The Protestants aren't functionally Sola Scriptura. They are functionally Prima Scriptura but have their own traditions, just like the Catholics! It isn't the scriptures that have caused the division. It is the traditions of men, including the traditions of Catholicism.
This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.
It is not surprising that the Catholic Church (TM), who has been fused with the worldly governments since Constantine in 325, would appeal to the model of an earthly government to argue for its unbiblical magisterium. Yet even this analogy fails because the Judges of the US Courts are not allowed to go beyond what the Constitution says, but must only judge by what is written. This is not what Catholicism does. It's magisterium adds its own traditions and doctrines because, as one Catholic put it: "there are modern controversies that must be resolved that the scriptures do not cover". He went on to post up Catholic traditions not found in scripture immediately defeating his own argument. If those teachings aren't in scripture (e.g. purgatory), then they aren't true. It's not any more difficult than that.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”
But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
The Catholics and Orthodox will point to the host of denominational differences, all the various different churches, and claim that all these differences show that sola scriptura has failed and we need the Church (TM) to guide us in our understanding of the truth.
This objection fails in two major ways.
The first way that this objection fails is that the Protestant and various other denominational groups aren't representative of Sola Scriptura. In every case where there is deviation from the scriptures, they are adding man's traditions to the written word and in many cases, subtracting from it. Examples are changing the organizational structure and qualifications of leadership within the church (2 Timothy 3; Titus 1), adding mechanical instruments to the worship, removing baptism as a necessary response to the call of the gospel to be saved and claiming that faith alone saves. These groups may be Prima Scriptura, but they all have their creeds, manuals, confessions of faith, and other enshrined documents by which they differentiate themselves from each other and all of these show that they are anything but Sola scriptura.
The second way in which this fails is in the two major groups that make this objection in the first place: the Catholics and the Orthodox. They claim that Sola Scriptura brings division, but neither of these groups holds to Sola Scriptura either and they, too, are divided with each other (beginning in 1054), not to mention serious divisions within their church structures. Do they divide on what is contained in scripture? No. They divide based on their extra-Biblical traditions, just like everyone else.
Sola Scriptura isn't the problem. It's the cure. It has always been the plea of the churches of Christ to give up these extra teachings and teach all and only what is found in scripture. It is the only objective standard of truth and the only way to achieve unity.
This objection is not found on that website above, but it is one made often enough to include it here in the first iteration of this article. The claim is that until 382 when the Council of Rome got together and determined the canon, which books belonged in the Bible, we didn't have a Bible, so how could those between 33 AD and 382 build their faith on the scriptures alone.
This is an absurd claim because the Council of 382 didn't "give us the scriptures". They just formalized a table of contents for their own growing denomination. The scriptures were already there since the faith had once and for all been delivered to the saints (Jude v 3). It was to the scriptures that Christians appealed from the end of the first century onward. The Catholic church didn't give us the Bible. God did.
Out of fear, out of a need for power and control, many men overturned the Biblical pattern of authority given in scripture. They corrupted the eldership of congregations and built a magisterium not found anywhere in the God-breathed scriptures. These same men, clinging to that power, fear that if we read the scriptures for ourselves, we will see that their power is a lie and reject them. It is what the Protestants began to do in the 1500s, but sadly developed their own extra-Biblical traditions and so remained corrupt. It is what the churches of Christ have always done, but without those man-made extra-Biblical traditions to corrupt us. When we speak, we speak as the oracles of God, and the only way to know what they spoke is to read about it in the God-breathed scriptures once and for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.