A question had been posed to me recently by a person of the Reformed persuasion who was offended that I would cite a non-biblical resource to bolster my argument on a certain subject; his cry was, ‘We are Sola Sciptura’ people. We do not need anything but the Word of God, to defend the Word of God!’. Essentially, he is correct; however, the Reformed have always used various help aids in coming to certain conclusions; for example, would it not be prudent to understand the church age of the Apostles. Israel was Ruled by Rome. Is it not important to understand Rome’s civil laws, etc.?
Creeds and What Not: The Reformed have always used manufactured creeds to combat error in the church. Consider our Confession and the secondary documents like the Larger and Smaller catechisms. These books are summaries of what we believe to be true in God’s Word. Think of it as ‘Cliff Notes’. They are not the bible, nor are they inspired. They are of the bible.
To be specific, the argument or charge was based on the fact that I cited the Book of Enoch in discussing Gen 6 and Jude 1. Consider the Apostle Paul when he cites Menander in Acts and 1 Cor; as well, in other spots, Seneca, Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. In no way did the Apostle advocate for these unbelievers, but gave credence to their wisdom on certain subjects.
We believers hold to ‘Sola Scriptura’, but never ‘Solo Scriptura’. There is a difference and we need to see the distinction. This photo helps:
For more on the subject, Go Here: