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.

Not so fast. Note the passive voice, “are built”. The doer of the building (still exclusively Jesus) is not defined in this passage:

Eph 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

As for the passage in Corinthians, yes, I agree, Paul uses building in reference to his activity and that of others on behalf of believers. Please note though that Paul does not take any credit for actually building the Church in the sense Jesus used. Indeed, he specifically asserts that only God can get the credit for any actual “increase,” and as that is not specifically limited to increasing church membership, it might also entail any individual spiritual growth resulting from the activity of Paul and the others.

Also note that as the passage flows, we are all “builders” in the lesser sense, in that while we can have no foundation other than Jesus, each of us may adorn that foundation with things worthy or things unworthy:

1Cor 3:6-15: I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Therefore, my statement, that Jesus alone is the builder of his church, still stands, because I do not dispute that we participate in the life of the church, but with Paul I stand for the proposition that it is only God who gives the increase, and only Jesus who is the foundation for that increase. That is how I understand what Jesus said when he declared that he would build his church. There, as here, the referent is Jesus, not Peter. I am sorry if my previous formulation of that idea was not clear for you.

Psalm 127:1 A Song of Ascents. Of Solomon. Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.

Peace,

“Yet I site the writings of your own Church fathers and historians.”

You cited that St. Thomas Aquinas rejected Perpetual Virginity. He did not. I cite evidence from the summa that he was a defender of perpetual virginity. I therefore conclude that you haven’t read St. Thomas Aquinas and are therefore ignorant of his opinion.

That you cited him to bolster your opinion suggests to me that you are copying and pasting from someone else who didn’t do their homework.

Then rather then admitting and owning up to your mistake you persist. Does that to me suggest intellectual honesty?

Jesus, God is not the sole builder. Rather He is the designer and the cornerstone. We are to build upon his foundation, but He is always to direct how we build.

While God could most definitely do it alone, He chose not to. He chose to use people. Paul says he completes the work begun by Jesus, but does so because of Jesus, not because Jesus left anything unfinished.

Jesus is the Good News, His commission to the apostles was to share it and bring it to all the world. Thus, He is the cornerstone and we are the builders(doers).

“I don’t know that they had to be approved by each Apostle”

That’s what Ireneus is saying here, that Scriptures were approved by the Apostles prior to being distributed to the Church.

“In fact, Peter accepted Paul’s writing as scripture, but why??? Was it because of what could be proven by Peter or was it because Peter knew Paul was an Apostle and his preaching/writing was authorative???”

Why would it be one or the other? Paul was authoritative in that God had elevated him to become an Apostle, along with Peter and the rest. Had God not done so, Paul would not be authoritative.

“If you believe that, then you certainly know as I do that the Canon of the scripture ended with the words of John in Revelation, ‘Even so, come Lord Jesus’...”

Well of course. Which is why Luther decided that his canon was superior. Possessing a first edition bible handed down to him and his order from John himself. Oh wait, no that wasn’t the case.

“Which is what Christ did with Matthew. He explicitly said that his Church would prevail, and that he was building his Church on Peter, the Rock. That’s a pretty strong clue that the office is intended to be passed on from one holder to another.”

Clues and overt statements are two very different things.
One is an assumption. One is stated. I build doctrine
on specific stated truths. I don’t draw between the lines
to connect dots that appear on the same page. Do as you
wish.

“Does it make sense to interpret the passage as saying that the Key is a one-time gift to Peter that would not be handed down to anyone else, while at the same time claiming that your Church would be perpetual? Hardly.”

Yes. I believe Peter was given authority in the Kingdom,
not in the Church on earth.

Again, for your perspective here, you are assuming. I do
not find arguments from silence persuasive.

best,
ampu

Look back at your post. You stated that “all Jerome argued” was that their were no Hebrew translations of the Apocrapha.

That is unfactual. Wikipedia isn’t going to help you, you have to go deeper. We can agree that you can find church fathers on both sides of canonicity. So that may not be as helpful as many would claim: so we have to turn to facts.

Since the Jews were the custodians of the OT Scripture, don’t you think that no Hebrew translations are a MAJOR indicator they were not accepted?

Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are really topics for textual criticism, not for discussions on the canon. I go for the Textus Receptus anyway because they agree with the Masoretic Text; but its a texual criticism issue.

The early church rejected the apocrypha, as did the Hebrews.
Review all of the early church rejections: it doesn’t leave room for the Council of Trent in 1546 to recognize them because the canon was already closed.

If you researched how the aprocypha is at odds with Scripture, it would be an interesting study. Sola Scriptura is only possible via a normal plain interpretation.

Finally, Jesus himself authenticated the OT canon. That is the best argument.

Well ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Are we discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary or her Assumption?

If it’s her assumption, then I will concede that there’s no evidence that we currently possess of it being taught prior to the 5th century, when the then Patriarch of Jerusalem brought it up at Chalcedon, that her tomb was known and that it was empty.

The question then becomes why wasn’t this known prior? For one, there seems to be doubt after John’s death in 112, as to where she was buried, whether it was in Ephesus or in Jerusalem. This question would not be settled until Juvenal’s testimony at Chalcedon.

That, plus the general upheaval in Jerusalem in the period from 70-170, the complete destruction of the Church there, something that wouldn’t be rectified until the time of Constantine, where the Church of the Nativity and the shrines of Christ were constructed.

Now it may be that evidence does in fact exist that we don’t possess, I don’t know.

By their fruits you shall know them.
What exactly in your mind are fruits if not good works?

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.

James is speaking of the TYPE of FAITH. Saving Faith produces good fruit.

Mental assent or demon faith does not save and will only have bad fruit.

Any kind of work on our part is NOT salvific and totaly incompatible with Grace (undeserved merit, mercy) according to Paul in the book of Romans

Jerome, despite his misgivings about the source material and lacking hebrew originals, still chose to include the books in the Canon. Thus, he’s not the evidence you are looking for to justify excluding books from the Canon.

That being said, I’m not even sure in the case of Macabbees that there is a hebrew original. It is the latest of the books, and written at a time when Greek was predominent. Jerome, only writing 400 years later doesn’t even know the answer to this question, and he’s much closer to the source material than we are.

“We can agree that you can find church fathers on both sides of canonicity.”

WRT to the NT. yes. On the OT, they all pretty much say the same thing. They use the Septuagint. We see it in Sinaiticus. We see it in Vaticanus. Even Jerome who is your strongest source (which is why you are using him), includes them. The first person to exclude them from the Canon, is none other than Luther.

“Since the Jews were the custodians of the OT Scripture, don’t you think that no Hebrew translations are a MAJOR indicator they were not accepted?”

Given that the Jews wrote and published the Septuagint, I don’t see it as a compelling argument that they considered these books to be out of the canon. I don’t see them arguing back in 30BC that these books ought to be excluded.

“Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are really topics for textual criticism, not for discussions on the canon.”

They are concrete evidence that the early Church did in fact use these books, and include them.

“I go for the Textus Receptus anyway because they agree with the Masoretic Text; but its a texual criticism issue.”

The reason you don’t like Vaticanus or Sinaiticus is that they are evidence in opposition to the Masoretic text. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older than the Masoretic text.

“The early church rejected the apocrypha, as did the Hebrews.”

Which is why the Jews wrote the Septuagint?

“If you researched how the aprocypha is at odds with Scripture, it would be an interesting study. Sola Scriptura is only possible via a normal plain interpretation.”

Sola scriptura + a canon without some books are contradictory. Either accept all the books or deny Sola Scriptura. The argument seems to be ‘books which I don’t like ought to be tossed out’, which is hardly an argument for Sola Scriptura.

“Finally, Jesus himself authenticated the OT canon. That is the best argument.”

Which is why he left us a list of books...

“I build doctrine on specific stated truths.”

Yet you say:

“Peter was given authority in the Kingdom, not in the Church on earth.”

Wow. Ok. This is despite the fact that Christ explicitly tells Peter, ‘Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound on Heaven?’

Sounds to me that Peter’s being given both, authority in the Kingdom, and authority in the Church on Earth, such that his authority in the Church on earth (bind on Earth), shall extend to heaven (bound in heaven).

actually, it always is...

It's always impressive to see someone who can believe 2 impossible things before breakfast. Disturbing, but impressive.

Pray to Mary or "saints"?

Call your "priest" "Father"?

Believe in Papal infallibility?

How about Purgatory or Limbo?

Catholic apologists have a long list of anti-biblical baloney to defend.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

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.