Is the Bible alone all that is needed in order to follow Christ?
I should begin with an explanation, I am Eastern Orthodox. The original Church. We, along with the Latin (Catholic), Oriental, Lutheran and Anglican Churches (although this is hotly contested, I admit that this particularity is my own perspective and should not be considered the universal position of all the Eastern, Oriental, Latin Church, or even the Anglican Communion), can show, through Apostolic Succession, our inheritance of the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon the Disciples by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ. In other words, it was the Orthodox, and those previously mentioned, who wrote the New Testament and cannonized the Bible into the book we all know today. It was us who handed down the Creed and established what a Christian is to believe in order to avoid heresy against the Word.
In keeping with this perspective, I and I alone consider many, if not most, Protestants, to be bibliolaters (worshippers of the Bible) based upon their rejection of Apostolic Succession, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Holy Tradition. That said, my position that Sola Scriptura is idolatry is not necessarily the topic of this thread. The topic is the position of Sola Scriptura itself:
Is the Bible alone all that is needed in order to follow Christ?
Of course, I don't think it is. I arrive at this conclusion by asking very simple, yet subtle, questions:
Does the Scripture teach that it is "all that is needed in order to follow Christ?"
...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 (II Timothy 3:15-17).
This is the verse most often used in order to substantiate the claim to Sola Scriptura. After all, if scripture alone makes the man pure, then it should be obvious that scripture alone should be sufficient to walk with Christ! Unfortunately, this interpretation requires very muddy thinking as well as a very cursory reading of scripture.
Was the New Testament completed when Paul wrote this of Timothy? Of course it wasn't. Which in and of itself exempts the Holy Traditions, founded in the New Testament, from the assertion that "scripture alone will suffice." Indeed, the "scripture" Paul is writing about is the Old Testament, the Jewish texts. Further, were Paul writing against tradition, why would he cite non-OT oral tradition in the very same chapter?
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (II Timothy 3:8)
There are also several more occasions in which Paul, and other writers, cite non-OT oral tradition in the NT - Enoch and Jude spring to mind.
By establishing a canon, an authoritative list of official texts to be received and considered as Sacred Scripture, the early Church was defending itself against the spurious claims to legitimacy of the Gnostic Christians with their competing texts. These texts, the early Church agreed, distracted from, and even misrepresented the Truth of the Christian doctrine. In handing down this Canon, the Church was by no means declaring that such texts were the absolute end-all container for everything necessary and proper for Christian life.
What was the New Testament used for?
The New Testament can basically be categorized into four literary genres: gospel, historical narrative, epistle, and prophecy.
The Gospels, of course, describe the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The historical narratives recount the history and organization of the early Church. The epistles were responses to specific problems that arose in the various Churches. Things that were understood by all, and not considered problems, were not touched upon in any great detail. The disputed doctrinal issues were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines. The prophecy was intended to foretell of God's inevitable triumph.
Note what is missing from these genres... worship. The OT repeatedly and extensively describes the manner in which those of the Old Covenant, the Jews, are to worship. Yet the NT is strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, all but silent on the matter. In fact, on the rare occasion worship is mentioned, it is described not as a "feeling" or a personal revelation due to intense study of the scriptures but, rather, liturgical and corporate worship.
Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour (Acts 3:1).
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart (Acts 2:46)
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them (Acts 21:26)
Further, if all we need is the scripture alone, then why does the NT not lay out a systematic theology for the faith? There is no catechism, nothing resembling a doctrinal statement.
If the Scriptures were the basis of the early Church, was Tradition a corruption of their purity?
So often, Protestants and Atheists alike criticize the more liturgical sects of Christianity of engaging in "corrupted practices." Of putting the "traditions of men" before the Word. Of course they base this assumption on misrepresentations and misunderstandings of actual text. Such mistakes lead them to believe that the first Christians were exactly like evangelicals of today! Carrying a bible to Church every Sunday, thumping it at every sinner on the corner, text proofing with one another and worshipping by the "Word alone."
Needless to say, this is nonsense. People of this perspective forget how few individuals could read before the 20th century. Moreover, the printing press wouldn't exist until the 15th century. This means that of the early Christians, almost none of them could read their Bibles and, most embarrassingly for the modern bibliolater, those Bibles that none of them could read didn't exist and wouldn't for another few hundred years. Remember, the canon didn't exist until the 4th century.
Most importantly, if the Christian is the creature of the New Covenant, revealed in the New Testament, then how did First Century Christians learn their faith when the NT had not yet been written? If they couldn't read about the life and crucifixion of Christ themselves, were they not real Christians? Were they, as I was recently accused of being, Pagans who replaced Holy Scripture with Holy Tradition?
Of course I'm not saying that study of the scripture didn't happen. I'm merely saying that the vast majority of Christians learned through oral tradition, rather than reading their Bible before bed every night.
Of course, I find myself committing the great sin of failing to text proof like the good little thumper I'm supposed to be. Allow me to rectify that oversight now, what do the Scriptures say about Tradition?
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you (1 Corinthians 11:2).
So if Christ declared that the Pharisees were wrong for focusing on the "traditions of men" and yet later Christians emphasize the importance of "tradition," what is the difference?
Christ is the difference.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread (1 Corinthians 11:23)
Recall that the Gospel John said:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
So does it make sense that Scripture alone should be sufficient?
Can anyone really interpret Scripture alone, without Tradition?
This is what is best known about Protestants. They'll say, "all I need is my Bible." The line of reasoning is that the meaning of Scripture is clear enough that anyone can understand it by simply reading it for oneself, without the guiding hand of the Church. The same people that claim this, tend to lament the 33,000 variations of Christianity and the very real and very poignant perspectives that Atheists take.
What is my conclusion? That Sola Scriptura is not appropriate. The death knell for the Sola Scriptura perspective can be lain out more simply than I've thus far managed:
Can the advocate of Sola Scriptura point to a verse within the Scripture itself that substantiates their claim that the "Bible alone is sufficient." No, they cannot.