A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

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.

"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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

"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.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

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."

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 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.

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.

“Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that captures the tenor of Scripture in order to systematize orthodox Christian theology.”

Well, historical evidence argues otherwise. Luther published the Book of Concord, which among many other things contains the Augsburg Confession along with three creeds they regarded as ecumenical.

That he found it necessary to do so is evidence of the following. One, he didn’t really believe in Sola Scriptura, for if he did, there is no need for the Augsburg confession, or the Book of Concord.

Two, that he didn’t really believe that the decisions made by the Church were arbitrary, or that ‘everything was up for grabs’. Why did he include those three councils? Because he believed they were an essential part of the Faith.

“Absent that, it cannot be systematized because of constant changes by subjectivity (private interpretations); depending on who is the Pope is at the time.”

So the argument is because the Popes are subjective, we ought to submit ourselves to the authority of others who are not popes because they are immune to subjectivity?

“The Apocraphal books were never considered inspired; Jerome made that clear (but even he isn’t the final arbitrator: the Spirit didn’t allow it).”

Jerome never argued this. All Jerome argued is that for these books he lacked hebrew versions. They were to be found to him, only in the Greek. They include parts of books, such as Daniel. Hence why he was less confident as to his translation matching the original.

His work was the dominant form of Christian scripture from the 5th century until the 15th. Arguing sola scriptura brings about the inevitable question. If in fact sola scriptura were true, and we lived during any of these 10 centuries, why would we not consider the Vulgate to be authoritative?

First, the Apostles and Jesus cited scripture as authoritative. When Jesus Himself argued with Satan, he quoted scripture. That, at a minimum, means a tradition cannot contradict scripture.

So if a church says Mary was taken up to heaven without tasting death, well...the scripture is silent, so believe what you want.

OTOH, when a church says Mary remained a virgin forever, well...there are multiple passages that indicate otherwise. If you choose to believe it REALLY meant cousin, I cannot stop you, but I expect you to understand why I reject what you say.

And when a church rules that a bishop (elder) must be single, that contradicts scripture. Again, I cannot prevent you from believing it, but you ought to understand why I reject it and the church that makes the claim.

Not all prophecies were written down and accepted as scripture. That doesn’t make them false, but if they contradict the scriptures, THEN they are false.

Also, there is no continuing revelation to the church. Paul told the elders in Acts 20 that he taught the whole counsel of God - not part, with some hidden. And John told Christians in 2 John to “abide in the teaching of Christ”.

If you wish to add other teaching (Papal Supremacy, Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc), I cannot stop you. But for me, I’ll be content to abide in the whole counsel of God as taught by the Apostles.

Excellent post!

Google search it.

Book of Concord lists the following:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/

http://www.bookofconcord.org/creeds.php

Contains the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

Augsburg confession

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php

Smacald Articles

http://www.bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Treatise on the Pope.

Yes, I am Catholic, but I’m trying hard to be fair here. The Book of Concord was published in 1580, by the Lutherans.

It is considered *the* doctrinal standard for all Lutherans, past and present.

I’m aware that other branches use other books, but the point I am trying to show is that I could just as easily quote the 39 articles and make the same argument.

Every church has tradition and doctrines and confessions and creeds. Most, if not all accept the ecumenical councils, which were neither their product, and is a part of the tradition handed down to them from the Apostles.

With regard to 4.a in the article, “He shall be called a Nazarene” is regarded, by no less than Jerome (as well as others), as a clear reference to Isaiah 1:11:

“Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene,’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacrilege either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery.”
~See NPNF2: Vol. 6, Epistle 57, To Pammachius.

And this, as with the other points listed against the unique and transcendant authority of Scripture, are all arguable ad infinitum only for a lack of all the facts, which Mr. Armstrong appears uninterested in divulging. But not ad infinitum, really, because come a bright day not long from now, the arguments will all cease.

For Catholics, it is by Mary ("ALL SALVATION" - UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX). For us Reformed Protestants - It is BY GOD (our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ) Alone.

Don't be silly. I think for Catholics: Water Baptism saves them initially, then Jesus makes that state of grace maintainable by "freely" giving them "grace" (spiritual power), so they can perform the good works they need to do to justify (merit for) themselves Heaven (were the soul is actually pleasing to God).

As a former Catholic for 27 years I don't recall hearing that Mary saved us, although RC's here keep reminding me that I was not properly catechized.

“And when a church rules that a bishop (elder) must be single, that contradicts scripture. Again, I cannot prevent you from believing it, but you ought to understand why I reject it and the church that makes the claim.”

Interesting. So you concede that Priests (Presbyteroi) do not have to be married, and that barring them from marrying is legitimate?

All the scripture says is that the Bishop must be a husband of but one wife. This does not say that the bishop is permitted to get married. As Apostle Paul defends the right of Apostles to be unmarried, it seems reasonable that the bishops may be unmarried as well.

You are correct that there is nothing barring one who is married, and remains married to his wife to become a bishop. There is nothing that requires that the bishop be married. This would also exclude a man who has remarried for he would have two wives.

“OTOH, when a church says Mary remained a virgin forever, well...there are multiple passages that indicate otherwise. If you choose to believe it REALLY meant cousin, I cannot stop you, but I expect you to understand why I reject what you say.”

I do understand. Do you also interpret the city Philadelphia to be the city of blood brotherly love? The same word, Adelphoi, is used in the passage as in the city of philadelphia.

You think the Word is something written.

Yes, that is correct, God ordained that it be written down, saying "It is Written". We believe the original writings were Supervised by God (3 Timothy 3:16), Inerrant and complete. We believe that God preserved the Scriptures despite the Enemy and their suppression by Man (Romans 1).

What saddens me here, is the Sophistry Attacks upon the Scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ. When one tries to separate God's Word and the Scriptures it is an attempt to undermine the Scriptures with the usual results.

The Natural man will attack the Scriptures, it is a part of the Old Sin Nature. He will try to suppress them, belittle them, and dismiss them. Unknowingly or knowingly dismissing the Savior the Lord Jesus Christ along the way.

It is sad to see.

“Matthew 16:19, among other things, Christ gives to Peter the ‘Keys to the kingdom of heaven’.”

What the verse says and how you interpret it are two
vastly different things. You have to start with a
huge assumption (that the keys were apostolic authority),
and then ASSUME that assumption also extends to include
succession.

Assumptions are interesting, but arguments from silence are
not persuasive.

Isaiah 22:19-24 - Shebna and Eliakim were real historical people, addressed in this oracle by Isaiah. It has nothing to do with Peter, apostolic succession or the Church. It does violence to the clear meaning of this passage to imply otherwise. Believe what you wish, I could not be intellectually honest and insert what isn’t there.

There isn’t anything you’ve put forth that is Biblical
evidence that the Church is to continue to have an Apostle
chosen on earth.

Nor did you answer any single issue I raised in my previous
post.

If continually choosing a new Apostle to be on earth was
true, it would be very important to the Church on earth.

If it were that important, it would be commanded to the
Church.

If it were that important, a process would be laid out that
the Church should follow.

Neither is true in the NT.

Still, thank you for responding. I wish you the best
in your life and faith,

ampu

“The Apocraphal books were never considered inspired; Jerome made that clear (but even he isn’t the final arbitrator: the Spirit didn’t allow it).”
Jerome never argued this. All Jerome argued is that for these books he lacked hebrew versions. They were to be found to him, only in the Greek. They include parts of books, such as Daniel. Hence why he was less confident as to his translation matching the original.

Seems like Jerome did make himself clear.

Jerome and Origen are the only fathers considered to be true biblical scholars in the early Church, and Jerome, alone among all the fathers, is considered to be a Hebrew scholar.

His translation became known as the Latin Vulgate and became the standard Bible translation used by the Western Church throughout the medieval ages and the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church.

Jerome lived in Palestine and consulted with the Jews. As a result he refused to translate the Apocrypha because the books were not part of the Hebrew canon. His position was that of Rufinus and Athanasius. He made it clear that the Church of his day did not grant canonical status to the writings of the Apocrypha as being inspired. While commenting on the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome made these statements about the books of Judith, Tobit and Maccabees:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church "

Jerome's convictions about the canon were clearly expressed in numerous places in his writings, in particular, the Prefaces he wrote to the Old Testament books. In these he enumerated the canonical books according to the Hebrew canon, thus rejecting the Apocrypha.

NPNF2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel. http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart2.html

“The post I was replying to (which was a reply to my earlier post) asked about the last 1500 years. That period covers every Papal policy I mentioned.”

The only policy prior to 1450 is the one which confers temporal power on the office of the Pope. Says nothing about ecclesiastical power. Even that dates to the 9th century at best, and wouldn’t really come to the forefront until the Investiture crisis.

So there’s this great big hole in the 300-400 years prior.

There are plenty of things that the Popes did in this period. I’m not going to list them all, but our dating system, calendar all of this was codified and established by the pope. The things you use everyday, yet you don’t seem to have a problem in using it. You celebrate Easter, based on the days and customs that he fixed. etc.

“The question on the table is whether or not the Pope’s interpretation of scripture is any better than that of anyone else.”

For the most part, if you are a Christian, you accept the authority of the Pope. Accepting the ecumenical councils is sufficient to affirm that you accept the majority of the tradition handed to you from the Apostles.

“former Catholic for 27 years”
“I was not properly catechized”
Obviously not. This should be automatic to you.
Salvation is by the Grace of God through Faith in Christ.

Certainly, you don't mean salvation is by Grace alone, thru Faith alone in Christ alone?

I think I got the correct main points from 12 years of daily catechism classes by the nuns.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.